PiPiiiliipill 


\i\m 


lu 


f 


Ube  Xllniversit^  ot  Cbica^o 


A  HISTORY  OF  SUFFRAGE  IN  THE 
UNITED  STATES 


A  DISSERTATION 

SUBMITTED   TO   THE   FACULTY 

OF  THE   GRADUATE   SCHOOL  OF   ARTS   AND   LITERATURE 

IN  CANDIDACY  FOR  THE   DEGREE   OF 

DOCTOR   OF   PHILOSOPHY 

DEPARTMENT  OF  POLITICAL  SCIENCE 


BY 


KIRK  HAROLD  ,PORTER 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CHICAGO  PRESS 
CHICAGO,  ILLINOIS 

1918 


Copyright  1918  By 
The  University  of  Chicago 


All  Rights  Reserved 


Published  November  1918 


•  •-••• 


Composed  and  Printed  By 

The  University  of  Chicago  Press 

Chicago,  Illinois,  U.S.A. 


TO 

Paul  M.  Godehn 

WHOSE   CONSTANT   INTEREST,  HELPFUL   ADVICE, 

AND  SUGGESTIVE   COMMENT  HAVE   BEEN  A 

SOURCE  OF  INSPIRATION  AND  STIMULUS 


405945 


PREFACE 

It  seems  to  have  been  taken  for  granted  in  this 
country  that  well-nigh  universal  manhood  suffrage  has 
existed  since  the  Revolution.  Curiously  enough  his- 
torians have  paid  almost  no  attention  to  the  struggle  for 
broader  suffrage  carried  on  during  the  first  fifty  years  of 
our  national  existence  and  thus  have  lent  color  to  the 
assumption  that  there  has  never  been  a  struggle  worth 
mentioning. 

It  is  the  purpose  of  this  book  to  bring  out  the  fact 
that  a  vigorous  fight  has  been  going  on  ever  since  1776 
to  secure  suffrage  for  some  large  and  discontented 
group — ever  growing  larger  and  more  discontented  un- 
til it  finally  embraced  the  women.  And  in  the  wake  of 
this  demand  the  suffrage  franchise  has  expanded  slowly, 
grudgingly,  and  by  compromising  steps.  The  progress 
still  continues  in  the  same  laborious  fashion. 

Many  are  surprised  to  learn  that  the  franchise  was 
so  limited  when  the  Constitution  was  adopted,  and 
the  histories  give  but  scant  hint  of  the  fact  that  in  the 
early  decades  of  the  last  century  the  greatest  statesmen 
in  such  states  as  Massachusetts,  New  York,  and  Virginia 
were  throwing  the  whole  weight  of  their  wisdom,  logic, 
and  oratory  into  the  balance  in  order  to  stem  the  tide 
and  restrict  the  suffrage  to  the  small  group  of  property 
owners  and  taxpayers.  A  history  of  these  events  is 
here  set  forth.  An  attempt  is  made  to  present  a  pano- 
ramic picture  of  the  whole  United  States  and  to  carry 


viii  Preface 

the  reader  rapidly  on  from  decade  to  decade  without 
getting  lost  in  the  details  of  local  history.  No  exhaustive 
study  of  suffrage  laws  at  any  given  time  or  place  has 
been  made,  for  that  would  not  have  served  the  purpose 
in  view.  Rather  the  political  ideals,  arguments  and 
theories,  social  conditions,  and  economic  circumstances 
that  caused  men  to  want  the  suffrage  and  think  they 
had  a  right  to  it  have  been  sought  out,  and  thus  the 
development  of  the  move  toward  universal  suffrage  has 
been  traced  in  its  broader  aspects.  Obviously  for  this 
purpose  the  debates  in  state  constitutional  conventions 
have  been  much  more  valuable  than  statutes  and 
constitutions.  It  is  therefore  these  debates  that  are 
the  foundation  of  this  book. 

It  may  be  that  undue  emphasis  has  been  placed  on 
the  Civil  War  and  the  reconstruction  period;  but  the 
intention  was  to  pick  out  of  Civil  War  history  the 
events  and  circumstances  that  had  to  do  directly  with 
the  suffrage  and  to  lay  them  before  the  reader  who  is 
not  necessarily  familiar  with  that  history.  Negro 
suffrage  is  an  unsolved  problem.  It  is  vitally  connected 
with .  Congressional  representation,  and  as  regards  this 
very  serious  complications  may  arise.  So  after  all  it  is 
well  for  one  to  have  a  pretty  thorough  knowledge  of 
negro  suffrage — how  the  negro  got  it,  what  he  did  with 
it,  how  he  lost  it,  and  what  the  result  may  lead  to. 

As  to  the  latest  and  most  interesting  phase,  that  of 
woman  suffrage,  the  treatment  may  not  be  considered 
entirely  satisfactory  or  fair  by  those  who  favor  the  cause. 
But  the  past  history  of  woman  suffrage  has  been  treated 
very  thoroughly  by  other  writers,  and  recent  history  is 
being  set  forth  by  every  woman's  club  and  uplift  society 


Preface  ix 

in  the  length  and  breadth  of  the  land.  So  far  as  woman 
suffrage  is  concerned  this  volume  is  intended  to  give 
the  reader  a  background  from  which  he  can  approach 
the  issue  with  a  knowledge  that  he  might  not  be  able  to 
get  elsewhere.  The  book  should  help  him  to  approach 
the  question  of  woman  suffrage  himself,  in  the  light  of 
other  suffrage  history — indeed,  the  history  of  ''man 
suffrage." 

K.  H.  P. 
Chicago,  III. 
September,  191 8. 


CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

I.  The  Transition  Period i 

II.  The  Weakening  of  Property  Tests  and  the 

Beginnings  of  the  Foreigner  Problem      ...  20 

III.  Property  Tests  at  Bay  and  the  Advent  of  the 
Free  Negro 47 

IV.  The  End  of  Property  and  Taxpaying  Qualifica- 
tions AND  the  Deadlock  on  the  Negro  Question  77 

V.  Aliens  and  the  Suffrage 112 

VI.  Beginnings  of  Woman  Suffrage 135 

VII.  Suffrage  and  the  Civil  War 150 

VIII.  Disfranchising  the  Negro 191 

IX.  Woman  Suffrage  Since  the  Civil  War    .     .     .  228 


XI 


CHAPTER  I 
THE  TRANSITION  PERIOD 

The  Colonial  period  in  the  history  of  suffrage  in  this 
country  has  already  been  thoroughly  covered  and  there 
is  no  occasion  for  rehearsing  the  data/  However,  the 
theory  and  practice  of  the  English  colonists  in  the  matter 
of  fixing  the  elective  franchise  must  be  reviewed  in  its 
broad  aspects  and  general  tendencies  in  order  to  secure 
an  adequate  foundation  on  which  to  base  a  history  of 
suffrage  since  the  Revolution. 

In  spite  of  the  tremendous  significance  of  the  Revolu: 
tion  and  its  effect  upon  the  political  life  of  the  colonists 
il^^eems'iiot  to  have  affected  the  normal  development  of 
suffrage  to  any  considerable  extent.  The  statesmen  of 
those  times  were  not  carried  away  by  the  success  of  the 
Revolution.  The  victory  was  merely  a  vindication  of 
their  theories  and  left  them  free  to  develop  their  ideas. 
But  since  the  home  government  had  never  attempted  to 
interfere  to  any  appreciable  extent  in  the  matter  of 
suffrage  the  franchise  in  the  thirteen  colonies  was 
already  fixed  in  accord  with  the  theory  of  that  day. 
The  Revolution"  brought  no  change  in  the  theory  and 
hence  there  was  no  occasion  for  sweeping  changes  in 
political  institutions  which  for  decades  past  had  been 
quite  at  the  disposal  of  the  colonists  themselves. 
Indeed,  so  very  sober  and  conservative  were  many  of 

^  C.  F.  Bishop,  History  of  Elections  in  the  American  Colonies;  A.  V. 
McKinley,  Suffrage  Franchise  in  the  Colonies. 


2  ;,    ;  ]j  Suffrage  m  the  United  States 

the  leaders  that  a  reactionary  movement  can  be  noted 
in  various  governmental  institutions .     However,_suff rage 
did  not  suffer  any  such  reaction  but  cqnJiaujsdJBuita 
normal  expansion.     On  first  sight  it  might  appear  that 
the  more  liberal  suffrage  provisions  to  be  found  in  the 
constitutions    immediately    following    the    Revolutio: 
indicate  an  abrupt  and  marked  advance  in  the  develop 
ment  of  suffrage  due  to  the  Revolution  itself.     But  thi 
interpretation    is    hardly    tenable.     Ideas    concerning 
suffrage  had  reached  a  certain  point  at  the  time  of  th( 
Revolution,  and  that  event  simply  provided  a  suitable 
occasion  to  express  these  ideas  in  the  organic  law.     It  is; 
reasonable  to  suppose  that  the  same  marks  of  develop-'' 
ment  would  have  come  anyway,  at  least  within  that 
generation,  instead  of  being  bunched,  as  it  were,  in 
meeting  the  exigency  of  the  war.     So  it  must  be  under- 
stood that  1776  is  an  appropriate  date  from  which  to 
trace  the  development  of  suffrage,  not  because  that  date 
is  a  landmark  of  especial  importance,  but  rather  simply 
because  1776  marks  the  beginning  of  the  United  States 
as  an  independent  country  with  a  history  of  its  own. 

It  is  then  quite  proper  to  review  with  great  briefness 
the  Colonial  period  and  see  if  it  is  possible  to  pick  up  the 
threads  of  suffrage  development,  trace  them  through  the 
Revolutionary  period,  and  see  what  new  lines  they  may 
lead  into. 

In  the  very  earliest  times  the  right  to  vote  in  a 
province  or  colony  was  claimed  in  very  much  the  same 
way  that  one  would  claim  a  right  to  vote  as  a  stockholder 
in  a  corporation.^  The  early  colonies  were  of  the  nature 
of  business  corporations,  and  the  analogy  in  voting  right 

"^  C.  F.  Bishop^  op.  cU.y  p.  47. 


The  Transition  Period  3 

is  not  surprising.  Hence  the  landed-property  qualifica-_ 
tion  was  the  one  outstanding  and  universal  requirement 
throughout  the  colonies,  for  real  property  was  consid- 
ered to  be  a  block  of  stock,  as  it  were,  in  the  corpora- 
tion and  entitled  the  holder  to  a  vote.  Of  course  this 
concept  was  not  so  consistently  carried  out  as  to  grant 
suffrage  to  minors,  women,  and  others  who  were  not 
considered  fit  to  exercise  the  franchise.  But  the  under- 
I  lying  idea  was  that  a  man's  property  entitled  him  to 
Wote — not.  his  character,  his  nationahty,  beliefs,  or 
residence,  but  his  property.  Massachusetts  in  162 1 
provides  a  good  illustration  of  the  business-corporation 
concept.^  There  was  no  thought  of  granting  suffrage  to 
mere  residents;  no  man  could  vote  until  he  had  the 
*' freedom  of  the  Company,"  which  involved  the  owner- 
ship of  real  estate. 

But  this  very  simple  test  of  property  holding  could 
not  long  hold  out  alone,  although  it  was  the  first  and  the 
dominating  consideration  for  almost  two  hundred  years 
following.  The  population  became  so  complex,  the 
interests  of  colonists  expanded  so  far  beyond  mere 
commercial  enterprise,  that  other  standards  of  fitness 
for  participation  in  the  affairs  of  the  community  were 
sought  out  and  established.  Strict  limitations  had  been 
put  upon  the  right  to  join  the  company,  and  after  the 
companies  ceased  to  exist  and  the  colonies  became 
exclusively  political  institutions  the  same  limitations 
were  carried  over  for  the  suffrage  with  some  elaboration. 
Xhey  dealt  with  all  the  various  things  which  are  sup- 
posed to  determine  capacity  to  take  intelligent  interest 
in  community  affairs.  Race,  color,  sex,  age,  religion, 
^  Hopkins  StvdkSj  XII,  383. 


4  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

and  residence  were  now  investigated  before  the  applicant 
was  admitted  to  the  suffrage.  The  theory  was  that  only 
those  who  clearly  had  an  interest  in  the  colony — 
measured  in  terms  of  tried  standards — should  exercise 
the  right  of  suffrage.  In  1 716  in  South  Carolina  an  act 
was  passed  aiming  to  admit  only  such  persons  as  had  an 
interest  in  the  colony,  and  it  excluded  Jews  and  free^ 
negroes,  in  addition  to  imposing  a  high  property  quali- 
fication and  religious  tests.'  This  evidence  of  interest 
in  Colonial  affairs  was  measured  in  exceedingly  narrow 
terms. 

Standards  of  character  and  fitness  varied  from  one 
part  of  the  country  to  another.  In  Massachusetts  the 
Puritans  believed  that  only  by  restricting  suffrage  to  men 
in  their  churches  could  the  future  well-being  of  the 
colony  be  insured.  The  problem  of  the  "right"  to  vote 
became  distinctly  subordinate.  They  restricted  the 
suffrage  for  the  good  of  the  community.  The  fact  that 
their  standard  of  good  character  (church  membership) 
was  narrow  is  not  at  all  surprising.  The  character  of 
the  man's  employment  was  often  considered  a  criterion 
of  his  ability  to  vote  intelligently,  and  thus  college  men 
and  clerical  officers  were  presumed  to  be  especially  fit 
for  the  suffrage. 

The  philosophy  of  suffrage  has  always  been  more  or 
less  opportunistic,  if  the  word  is  permissible.  Suffrage 
qualifications  are  determined  for  decidedly  materialistic 
considerations,  and  then  a  theory  is  evolved  to  suit  the 
"1  situation.  In  the  early  days  riot  and  disorder  might 
accompany  an  election.  The  authorities  would  there- 
upon fix  the  qualifications  so  that  the  disorderly  people 

^  McKinley,  op.  cit.,  p.  146. 


The  Transition  Period  5 

could  not  vote  next  time.  Then  would  come  the  theory 
to  justify  it — only  those  owning  a  certain  number  of 
acres  would  be  considered  fit  to  vote,  only  those  of  a 
certain  religious  faith,  and  so  on.  Unquestionably  this 
has  happened  in  times  of  stress,  for  theory  did  not  come 
to  be  the  preliminary  determining  factor  until  complete 
peace  and  order  prevailed,  and  even  then  theory  was 
not  uncolored  by  materialistic  considerations.  Suffrage 
limitations  were  bound  to  adapt  themselves  to  social 
and  economic  conditions.  In  rural  Virginia  the  freehold 
requirement,  of  fifty  acres  excluded  very  few  of  the  best 
t3^e  of  men.^  But  such  a  requirement  in  an  urban 
community  would  have  been  intolerable.  Obviously 
an  absolute  criterion  could  not  obtain.  It^Jhecame 
necessary  to  adopt  whatever  criterion  was  calculated  ta 
embrace  the  best  men."! 


l. 


Mpral  qualifications  were  restricted  almost  exclu- 7*^ 


sively  to  New  England.  It  was  sometimes  necessary 
for  the  voter  to  show  proof  of  his  good  character.  At 
other  times  if  one  were  accused  of  improper  conduct  it 
would  cost  him  his  vote,  although  the  particular  offense 
was  not  mentioned  in  the  law.  In  the  South  there  were 
restrictions  against  men  of  certain  race — foreigners  and 
negroes  were  excluded.  There  were  complaints  that 
"Jews,  strangers,  sailors,  servants,  negroes,  and  French- 
men" could  vote.^  No  definite  reason  was  given  why 
these  people  should  not  vote,  for  no  doubt  the  reason  was 
supposed  to  be  obvious  enough. 

All  of  th^  restrictions  and  qualifications  can  be  seen 
to  support  one  of  two  fundamental  principles :  one  may 
be  called  the  "the^ory  of  right"  and  the  other  the  "theory 

*  Ihid.,  p.  44.  '  Ihid.,  p.  138. 


6  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

of  the  good  of  the  state."  Every  qualification  imposed! 
had  one  of  these  two  principles  in  view.  Either  it  was ! 
established  in  order  to  fulfil  the  right  which  certain  people! 
were  supposed  to  have,  or  else  it  was  established  simplyj 
in  order  to  serve  the  best  interests  of  the  state.  It  might- 
have  been  said  that  a  man  had  a  right  to  vote  because 
he  owned  property,  or  because  he  was  a  resident,  or 
because  he  paid  taxes,  or  simply  because  the  right  to 
vote  was  a  natural  right.  And  this  would  be  the  guiding 
consideration  without  regard  to  the  effect  it  might  have 
on  the  well-being  of  the  community.  Thus  in  some 
places  Nonconformists  were  allowed  to  vote  because 
their  property  right  was  recognized.  Non-residents 
were  permitted  to  vote  where  they  owned  property 
solely  because  they  were  supposed  to  have  a  right  to  vote 
on  account  of  their  holdings.  This  theory  of  right  was 
the  first  to  appear  and  has  always  persisted.  Each 
generation  would  seek  to  add  a  new  subhead  to  the  title, 
as  it  were,  and  base  a  "right"  to  vote  on  some  new 
ground. 

The  other  great  principle  or  theory  had  to  do  with 
the  good  of  the  state.  It  developed  as  soon  as  the 
narrow  business-corporation  concept  was  abandoned, 
and  it  was  most  emphasized  by  the  Puritans.  It 
continues  to  the  present  day  but  has  never  been  entirely 
divorced  from  the  theory  of  right.  Under  this  theory 
of  the  good  of  the  state  men  were  excluded  because  they 
were  not  church  members,  because  they  were  criminals, 
because  they  had  not  been  residents  a  long-enough  time. 
It  is  not  always  possible  to  classify  every  restriction 
definitely,  but  it  may  be  said  that  one  of  these  two 
theories  controls  every  modification  of  the  suffrage. 


The  Transition  Period  7 

It  would  be  well  now  to  scan  the  situation  as  it  was 
immediately  before  the  Revolution,  see  who  could  vote, 
and  note  the  influence  which  these  two  theories  were 
exerting. 

Seven  of  the  thirteen  revolting  colonies  maintained 
an  uncompromising  landed-property  qualification.  No 
one  could  vote  unless  he  owned  real  estate.  Thus  in 
Rhode  Island  it  had  been  determined  as  late  as  1767 
that  in  order  to  vote  one  must  own  real  estate  which  was 
value^^  at  forty  pounds  or  which  yielded  an  annual  rent 
of  forty  shillings.  Also,  Catholics  were  excluded  from 
the  polls.  There  seem  to  have  been  no  other  require- 
ments— not  even  the  usual  residence  period.  Georgia, 
on  the  other  hand,  required  of  her  voters  that  they  possess 
fifty  acres  of  land  in  the  district  where  they  cast  their 
votes,  and  also  that  they  live  in  the  province  six  months 
previous  to  the  election.  Thus  Georgia  did  not  recog- 
nize mere  ownership  of  property  as  the  sole  evidence  of 
proper  interest  in  the  affairs  of  the  community.  The 
voter  must  be  more  than  a  mere  stockholder,  as  it  were. 
He  must  have  his  residence  in  the  district  where  he 
wished  to  vote,  and  he  must  have  lived  in  the  province 
six  months.  A  short  period,  to  be  sure,  but  it  indicates 
a  tendency  to  hold  the  good  of  the  state  as  well  as  the 
right  of  the  individual  in  view — in  contrast  with  Rhode 
Island,  where  only  the  property  right  of  the  individual 
was  recognized. 

The  New  Hampshire  suffrage  law  dated  back  to^i727. 
Here  is  found,  instead  of  property  in  terms  of  acres,  real 
estate  in  terms  of  money  value.  The  voter  must  possess 
real  estate  in  the  district  where  he  voted  to  the  value  of 
fifty  pounds.     Thus  New  Hampshire,  like  Georgia,  laid 


8  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

some  stress  on  residence.  The  fifty-pound  value  rather 
than  fifty  acres  is  significant.  In  Georgia  it  was  easier 
to  acquire  fifty  acres  of  land  than  it  was  to  acquire  land 
worth  fifty  pounds.  Land  was  so  cheap  that  it  would 
take  a  very  large  amount  to  be  worth  that  sum,  whereas 
in  more  thickly  populated  New  England  a  fifty-acre 
requirement  would  have  been  prohibitive.  This  prob- 
lem was  to  be  a  vexed  one  in  future  years  in  states 
where  there  were  both  rural  and  urban  communities. 
North  Carolina  and  New  York  present  a  similar  contrast. 
In  the  former  province  one  had  need  to  possess  a  free- 
hold of  fifty  acres  and  must  have  lived  in  the  province 
six  months,  while  in  New  York  one  must  have  held  lands 
or. tenements  to  the  value  of  forty  pounds.  In  New 
York  the  letter  of  the  law  excluded  Jews  and  Catholics, 
but  there  seems  to  have  been  no  strict  enforcement  of  this 
provision.^ 

Three  states  present  a  slight  modification  of  the 
uncompromising  and  rather  high  real  estate  qualification. 
The  Virginia  law  of  1762  required  an  estate  of  fifty  acres 
if  the  land  were  undeveloped  and  twenty-five  acres  if 
the  land  was  being  ^^rked  and  was  occupied  by  a  house 
twelve  feet  square,  or  a  town  lot  with  a  similar  house. 
Here  was  Virginia  trying  to  reconcile  the  demands  of 
urban  dwellers,  who  found  it  hard  to  acquire  lands  of 
broad  extent,  and  the  rural  population,  which  would 
resent  a  qualification  fixing  a  value  upon  the  land  which 
must  be  held.  Virginia  introduced  more  restrictions  of 
another  sort  than  any  of  the  other  colonies.  Free 
negroes,  mulattoes,  Indians,  women,  minors,  and  Cath- 
olics were  specifically  excluded,  and  some  others  were 

^  McKinley,  op.  cit.,  p.  212. 


The  Transition  Period  9 

automatically  excluded  by  the  restriction  of  voting 
rights  to  Protestants.  This  law  had  been  in  force  since 
1762  and  obtained  well  into  the  nineteenth  century. 

New  Jersey  modified  the  real  estate  qualifications 
even  more  than  Virginia,  where  the  franchise  could  be 
exercised  by  one  who  possessed  a  town  lot.  New  Jersey 
demanded  one  hundred  acres  of  land  or  personal  prop- 
erty to  the  value  of  fifty  pounds  and  some  real  estate. 
Some  land  was  required,  but  it  may  have  been  ever  so 
little  if  the  individual  possessed  enough  other  property 
to  be  worth  fifty  pounds. 

South  Carolina  further  modified  the  landholding 
qualification  by  laying  stress  on  the  payment  of  taxes. 
One  must  have  possessed  one  hundred  acres  of  unsettled 
land  on  which  he  paid  taxes,  or  a  settled  plantation,  or 
he  must  have  owned  a  town  house  and  lot  worth  sixty 
pounds  on  which  he  paid  taxes,  or  he  must  have  paid 
taxes  amounting  to  ten  shillings  per  annum,  which 
would  be  sufiicient  in  itself.  Residence  of  one  year  in 
the  province  was  required,  and  the  franchise  was  limited 
to  Protestants. 

The  five  remaining  colonies  allowed  the  substitution  s< 
of  personal  property  for  real  estate.  This  indicates  a 
distinct  concession  to  the  urban  communities,  and  it  is 
significant  that  four  of  these  states  are  in  the  small 
New  England  group,  where  the  supply  of  real  estate  was 
limited.  This  adaptation  of  the  suffrage  qualification 
to  the  particular  economic  situation  illustrates  the 
willingness  of  men  to  adjust  their  ideas  of  what  is  funda- 
mentally right  to  the  needs  of  the  dominant  group. 

In  Massachusetts  one  must  have  owned  real  estate 
yielding  an  annual  income  of  forty  shillings,  or  must 


lo  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

have  possessed  other  property  worth  forty  pounds.  The 
Connecticut  qualification  was  identical  with  that  of 
Massachusetts.  In  Maryland  it  was  fifty  acres  of  land 
or  personal  property  to  the  value  of  forty  pounds. 
Catholics  also  were  excluded  in  Maryland.  In  Delaware 
one  must  have  possessed  fifty  acres,  with  twelve  acres 
cleared  and  improved,  or  have  been  otherwise  worth 
forty  pounds.  Here  also  was  the  highest  residence 
requirement — two  years  in  the  province.  In  Penn- 
sylvania it  was  fifty  acres  of  land  or  any  kind  of  property 
valued  at  fifty  pounds. 

Only  eight  of  the  thirteen  states  altered  their  suffrage 
laws  during  the  Revolution,  and  the  modifications  were 
not  such  as  to  indicate  that  statesmen  had  abandoned  the 
principle  that  only  property  holders  should  vote.  The 
only  tendency  manifest  was  to  reduce  the  amount. 
Thus  Georgia  in  1777  placed  the  property  qualification 
at  ten  pounds'  value,  either  real  or  personal  property. 
Maryland  set  the  requirement  at  fifty  acres  of  land  or 
thirty  pounds  in  money.  New  Jersey  said  nothing  about 
real  estate  but  put  the  test  at  fifty  pounds'  proclamation 
money.  New  York  required  a  freehold  of  twenty 
pounds,  or  ownership  of  a  rented  tenement  yielding  forty 
pounds,  and  evidence  that  a  state  tax  had  been  paid. 
North  Carolina  required  ownership  of  fifty  acres  of  land 
in  order  to  vote  for  senators,  but  the  right  to  vote  for 
members  of  the  lower  house  was  enjoyed  by  all  who 
simply  paid  public  taxes.  Pennsylvania  abandoned  the 
property  test  and  merely  required  the  payment  of  public 
taxes.  In  1778  South  Carolina  exhibited  her  conserva- 
tism by  sticking  to  a  high  qualification^ — a  freehold  of 
fifty  acres  or  a  town  lot,  or  the  payment  of  a  tax  equal 


The  Transition  Period  n 

to  a  tax  on  fifty  acres.  South  Carolina  also  insisted  that 
voters  should  acknowledge  the  being  of  a  God  and 
believe  in  future  rewards  and  punishments.  This,  it 
may  be  said,  was  the  last  survival  of  the  old  religious 
qualifications  and  is  conspicuous  for  standing  alone. 
In  1780  Massachusetts  fixed  her  suffrage  requirement 
at  a  freehold  yielding  an  income  of  three  pounds,  or  an 
estate  valued  at  sixty  pounds. 

The  comparison  of  Tables  I  and  II  on  pages  12  and  13 
illustrates  the  fact  that  the  Revolution  had  a  very  slight 
immediate  effect  on  the  development  of  suffrage.     In  ' 
every  one  of  the  thirteen  states  a  property  qualification 
still  held,'  and  in  five  of  them  the  property  had  to  be  in 
the  form  of  real  estate.    The  great  accomplishment' 
during  the  last  century  of  the  Colonial  period  had  been  j  y 
the  breaking  down  of  religious  and  moral  qualifications.,' 
These  had  practically  disappeared  and  need  not  occupy 
further  attention.    The  interesting  process  to  be  noted 
at  the  end  of  the  eighteenth  century  was  the  breakdown 
of  the  old  English  principle  that  suffrage  should  only  go     ^- 
with  ownership  of  real  estate,  this  theory  being  based  on 
the  right  of  men  to  vote  in  virtue  of  their  possessing  a  . 
material  interest  in  the  community.    There  are  normally  ( 
two  steps  in  the  breakdown  of  the  real  estate  require- 
ment: first,  the  substitution  of  personalty  for  real  estate,    \ 
and  second,  the  substitution  of  taxpaying  for  property  j 
of  any  kind.    These  stages  are  illustrated  in  the  laws^ 
of  the  thirteen  states  and  in  a  striking  manner  indicate  ) 
that  the  Revolution  occurred  right  in  the  very  midst  of 

^  The  pa3mient  of  taxes  only,  as  in  Tennessee,  was  equivalent  to 
owning  property,  although  of  course  it  may  have  been  an  exceedingly 
small  amoimt. 


< 


12 


Suffrage  in  the  United  States 


TABLE  I 
Property  Qualifications  Just  before  the  Revolutionary  War* 


State 


Real  Estate  Required 


Alternative 


REAL  ESTATE   IN   TERMS 
OF  ACRES 


Georgia 

North  Carolina 
Virginia 


New  Jersey. 


50  acres 

50  acres 

50  acres  vacant,  or  25  acres  cul- 
tivated, and  a  house  12X12, 
or  a  town  lot  and  house  12  X 


TOO  acres,  or  some  real  estate 
and  personalty  worth  50 
pounds  


REAL  ESTATE  IN  TERMS 
OF  VALUE 


New  Hampshire. 

New  York 

Rhode  Island .  .  . 


Worth  50  pounds 

(^Worth  40  pounds 

Worth  40  pounds,  or  yields  40 
shillings  annual  income 


REAL  ESTATE  WITH  AN 
ALTERNATIVE 


Pennsylvania . 

Delaware 

Maryland.  .  .  . 
Connecticut.  . 


Massachusetts . 
South  Carolina. 


50  acres 

50  acres  (12  cleared), 
50  acres , 


Yielding   40   shillings    annual 
income 


Yielding  40  shillings    annual 
income 


100  acres  on  which  taxes  are 
paid,  or  town  house  or  lot 
worth  60  pounds  on  which 
taxes  are  paid 


Other  property 
worth  50  pounds 

Other  property 
worth  40  pounds 

Other  property 
worth  40  pounds 

Other  property 
worth  40  pounds 

Other  property 
worth  40  pounds 


Payment  of  10 
shillings  in  taxes 


*  McKinley,  op.  cit. 


The  Transition  Period 


13 


TABLE  II 

Property  Qualifications  Immediately  after  the 
Revolutionary  War* 


State 


Real  Estate  Reqixired 


Alternative 


REAL  ESTATE  IN  TERMS 
OF  ACRES 


North  Carolina 
Virginia 


50  acresf 

50  acres  vacant,  or  25  acres  cul- 
tivated, and  a  house  12X12, 
or  a  town  lot  and  house  12  X 


REAL  ESTATE  IN  TERMS 
OF  VALUE 


New  Hampshire . 
Rhode  Island .  .  . 

New  York 


Worth  50  pounds 

Worth  40  pounds,  or  yields  40 
shillings  annual  income  .... 

Worth  20  pounds,  or  yields  40 
shillings    annual    income 
(must  have  paid  a  state  tax) . 


REAL  ESTATE   WITH   AN 
ALTERNATIVE 


Delaware.. . 
Connecticut . 


Massachusetts , 
South  Carolina. 


Maryland . 


50  acres  (12  cleared) 

Yields  40  shillings  annual  in- 
come   

Yields  3  pounds  annual  income 

50  acres,  or  a  town  lot 

50  acres 


Other  property 
worth  40  pounds 

Other  property- 
worth  40  pounds 

Other  property 
worth  60  pounds 

Payment  of  a  tax 
equal  to  a  tax  on 
50  acres 

30  pounds  in  money 


NO   REAL  ESTATE   REQUIRED 


New  Jersey 


Georgia 

Pennsylvania . 


50  pounds    proclamation 

money 

Property  of  ten  pounds'  value 
Must  have  paid  public  taxes . . 


*F.  N.  Thori),  American  Charters,  Constitutions,  and  Organic  Laws.  Observe  that 
five  states,  Georgia,  Maryland,  New  Jersey,  New  York,  and  Pennsylvania,  lowered  the 
qualifications  from  those  existing  before  the  war. 

I  This  qualification  applied  only  in  the  election  of  state  senators.  Payment  of 
pubhc  taxes  was  the  qualification  for  voting  for  members  of  the  lower  house. 


4 


14  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

this  interesting  gradual  transition  from  property  in  real 
I  i^  estate  to  simple  taxpaying.  The  exclusive-property  test 
\  then  was  doomed  when  the  United  States  came  into 
being,  although  it  still  clung  to  more  than  half  the  states. 
It  was  losing  its  grip,  but  it  required  more  than  half  a 
^century  to  shake  it  off  entirely.  New  states  as  they 
f  entered  the  Union  seemed  to  fit  into  the  general  scheme 
of  things  without  disturbing  the  normal,  gradual  expan- 
sion of  the  suffrage.  The  constitutions  of  incoming 
states  squared  up  with  new  constitutions  of  the  old 
states  and  merely  added  size  to  the  picture,  as  it  were, 
without  changing  its  fundamental  aspect.  This  gradual 
expanding  process  must  be  traced.  As  old  threads 
become  thin  and  finally  break  and  property  tests 
are  lost  to  view,  new  threads  are  taken  up  in  the  form 
of  problems  presented  by  the  foreigner,  the  free  negro, 
and  woman. 

Other  minor  problems  had  to  be  dealt  with  too  as  the 
property  test  disappeared.  Residence  was  an  incon- 
siderable item  in  the  Colonial  period,  as  was  also  citizen- 
ship. These  problems  were  dealt  with  in  the  coming 
years,  and  the  suffrage  laws  began  to  assume  the  function 
j  of  penalizing  men  for  crime  and  keeping  the  polls  free 
L.  of  corruption.  These  new  functions  necessitated  modi- 
fications of  the  theory  of  suffrage;  presently  it  was 
found  that  the  theory  of  right  and  the  theory  of  social 
good  came  into  conflict,  and  yet  the  interpretation  of 
each  in  the  light  of  advancing  civilization  involved  an 
expansion  of  the  suffrage. 

Of  course  the  basis  on  which  a  study  of  the  suffrage 
must  be  founded  would  be  the  constitutional  provisions 
in  the  various  states.    Altogether  there  have  been  about 


The  Transition  Period  15 

one  hundred  and  twenty  constitutions  drawn  up  and  put 
in  operation  since  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  and 
the  suffrage  provisions  in  these  constitutions  must  be 
the  structural  work  on  which  a  history  of  suffrage  may  be 
built.  They  indicate  the  actual  turning-points  and  show 
in  unembellished  outline  form  the  trend  of  thought  on 
the  matter  of  suffrage.  But  the  question  at  once  occurs : 
Is  it  necessary  to  take  account  of  the  acts  of  state 
legislatures  and  add  statutes  to  the  outline  structure? 
However,  a  study  of  the  constitutional  law  on  the 
subject  and  a  survey  of  statutory  acts  concerning 
suffrage  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  the  legislative 
acts  are  of  scarcely  any  importance  and  do  not 
need  to  be  added  to  the  constitutional  provisions  in 
order  to  form  an  adequate  basis  for  a  history  of 
suffrage.  Writers  on  constitutional  law  and  the  law 
of  elections  dispel  all  scruples  on  this  matter.^  But  it 
occasionally  happens  that  the  constitution  permits  the 
legislature  to  use  discretion  in  the  matter  of  enlarging 
the  suffrage.  Thus  in  recent  years  legislatures  have 
been  permitted  to  levy  poll  taxes  as  a  prerequisite  to 
voting  and  to  impose  literacy  tests.  But  authority  for 
these  must  always  be  positively  found  in  the  constitution 

^  M.  H.  Throop  {Law  of  Public  Officers,  p.  129)  says,  "The  power) 
of  the  state  to  regulate  the  elective  franchise  is  exercised  universally  byi 
means  of  provisions  in  the  constitutions  of  each  state."  He  goes  on  to 
point  out  that  there  is  a  very  small  field  left  for  statute  law.  Acts  are 
sure  to  be  declared  void  if  they  prescribe  further  qualifications  than  the 
constitution  contains,  or  if  they  grant  suffrage  to  any  person  who  does 
not  possess  the  qualifications  stipulated  for.  However,  requirements 
not  in  conflict  with  the  spirit  of  the  constitution  may  be  superadded,  such 
as  terms  of  residence  in  election  districts,  exclusion  of  certain  public 
ofi&cers  from  the  suffrage,  etc.  But  anything  the  legislature  may  do  is 
likely  to  be  of  small  importance. 


1 6  Sufrage  in  the  United  States 

itself/  The  tendency  always  is  to  restrict  the  power  of 
the  legislature  to  tamper  with  the  suffrage  requirements, 
.  and  the  courts  incline  to  construe  the  suffrage  clause 
very  narrowly.^  It  is  even  doubtful  if  the  legislature 
can  grant  permission  to  local  government  units  to 
restrict  the  suffrage  farther  than  is  done  in  the  con- 
stitution.^ The  subject  is  dealt  with  by  Judge  Cooley 
in  the  following  words  :"* 

The  doctrine  that  the  legislature  cannot  add  to  the  consti- 
tutional qualifications  of  voters  is  founded  upon  the  well-settled 
rule  of  construction  that  when  the  constitution  specifies  the 
circumstances  under  which  a  right  may  be  exercised  or  a  penalty- 
imposed,  the  specification  is  an  implied  prohibition  against  legis- 
lative interference  to  add  to  the  condition,  or  to  extend  the  penalty 
to  other  cases. s 

The  chief  business  of  the  legislature  in  connection 
with  suffrage,  and  a  very  important  function  it  is  too, 
is  to  regulate  and  safeguard  the  exercise  of  the  franchise 
in  order  that  the  fundamental  provisions  with  regard  to 
suffrage  as  found  in  the  constitution  will  be  properly 

^  F.  R.  Mechem  {Law  of  Public  Officers,  p.  80)  calls  attention  to  the 
fact  that  many  times  legislatures  have  attempted  to  overstep  the  bounds 
set  out  for  them  by  the  constitution,  and  that  the  acts  they  have  passed 
have  been  declared  unconstitutional.  He  cites  many  cases  concerning 
the  imposition  of  oaths,  registration  acts,  etc.,  which  in  efifect  added  to 
the  constitutional  requirement  for  suffrage. 

*  State  V.  Williams,  5  Wisconsin  308;  State  v.  Lean,  9  Idaho  279. 

3  G.  W.  McCrary  (American  Law  of  Elections,  p.  38)  points  out  that 
there  is  no  unanimity  as  regards  the  franchise  that  may  be  granted  in 
local  governments  on  ofl&ces  not  organized  by  the  constitution.  But 
he  declares  that  the  weight  of  opinion  is  overwhelmingly  against  per- 
mitting alteration  of  the  suffrage  qualifications  under  any  circumstances. 

4  Constitutional  Limitations,  p.  64. 

s  See  Rison  v.  Farr,  24  Arkansas  161;  Allison  v.  Blake,  37  New 
Jersey  6. 


The  Transition  Period  17 

observed.  This  may  involve  a  great  many  minute  , 
regulations  but  no  essential  alteration  of  the  right  of  J ' 
suffrage/  Thus  a  registration  law  passed  by  a  state  is 
perfectly  good  so  long  as  it  does  not  actually  impair  the 
right  of  the  individual  to  vote.  It  merely  systematizes 
the  exercise  of  the  franchise.^  And  as  to  oaths,  one  may 
only  be  required  to  answer  concerning  his  qualifications 
as  set  forth  in  the  constitution. 

In  contrast  to  all  this  it  should  be  pointed  out  that 
occasionally  state  legislatures  have  been  permitted  to 
set  a  different  suffrage  qualification  for  non-constitutional 
offices.  This  happened  in  Illinois  within  the  past 
decade,  and  women  were  given  the  right  to  vote  for 
non-constitutional  offices,  including  of  course  presiden- 
tial elections.  No  evidence  of  woman  suffrage  can  be 
found  in  the  constitution,  and  yet  woman  suffrage  in 
Illinois  is  a  very  significant  fact.  However,  this  situa- 
tion is  conspicuous  for  being  very  rare.  It  can  be 
interpreted  only  as  a  reflection  on  the  rigid  amending 
machinery  of  the  state  constitution  and  indicates  a  sure 
movement  toward  an  amendment  to  remedy  the  anoma- 
lous situation  as  soon  as  the  inertia  can  be  overcome  and 
the  amending  machinery  set  in  motion. 

The  constitutions  of  incoming  states  and  the  new 
constitutions  of  old  states  appear  with  sufficient  regu- 
larity and  absence  of  broad  intervening  periods  of  time, 
so  that  a  good  knowledge  of  the  causes  and  circumstances 
of  their  being  provides  an  excellent  index  of  popular 

^  McCrary,  op.  cit.,  chap.  xxi. 

^  Throop  (p.  135)  calls  attention  to  an  Oregon  case,  White  v.  County 
Commissioners,  13  Oregon  317,  in  which  even  this  doctrine  was  narrowed 
down  and  a  registration  law  set  aside. 


1 8  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

opinion  and  the  trend  of  public  thought.  Convention 
debates,  where  they  have  been  fully  reported,  are  the 
most  valuable  sources  of  information,  as  the  conventions 
were  clearing-houses  for  popular  opinion  and  a  place  for 
long-pent-up  convictions  to  burst  in  a  blaze  of  oratory 
and  echo  the  opinions  of  tradesmen  in  the  cities  and 
farmers  in  the  country,  as  well  as  of  scholars  and  pro- 
fessional men.  These  debates  bring  out  the  reasons  men 
had  for  wanting  a  broader  extension  of  the  suffrage. 
Were  they  materialistic?  The  practical  lawyer  was 
there  to  exploit  them.  Were  they  based  on  philosophic 
reflection?  The  dreamer  was  there  to  wax  eloquent 
about  it.  Special  interests  had  their  spokesmen  present. 
The  gathering  sentiment  from  year  to  year,  modified  and 
influenced  in  the  one  state  by  the  actions  in  the  others, 
would  finally  gain  complete  expression  on  the  convention 
floor  and  be  recorded  in  a  new  constitution  which  in  turn 
would  influence  and  modify  the  tendencies  in  the  neigh- 
bor states.  This  interaction  cannot  be  too  much 
emphasized;  one  state  abandons  the  property  test 
because  her  sister-states  have  done  so  and  are  attracting 
the  labor  element  there.  A  state  in  the  Middle  West 
agrees  to  let  the  foreigner  vote  in  order  to  attract 
immigrants  from  other  states  to  her  own  unplowed 
fields.  The  people  of  a  border  state  between  the  South 
and  the  North  vigorously  oppose  the  negro  suffrage 
because  southern  state  law  drives  the  free  negro  out  of 
his  native  haunts.  And  so  it  goes.  A  continuous  inter- 
play of  forces  manifest  themselves  each  succeeding  year 
in  new  constitutions  springing  up  here  and  there  all  over 
the  continent,  and  they  form  an  endless  concatenation 
which,  if  it  could  be  pictured  graphically,  would,  in  the 


The  Transition  Period  19 

phrases  of  the  statistician,  form  a  smoothly  sweeping 
curve  toward  broader  suffrage. 

False  theories,  specious  arguments,  igftorance,  and 
prejudice  all  played  their  part,  as  well  as  conscious 
ulterior  motive,  progressive  statesmanship,  and  benevo- 
lent democracy.  Convention  debates  may  be  woefully 
puerile,  verbose,  bombastic,  or  naive.  Yet  if  the  orator 
by  passionately  invoking  the  natural-right  doctrine  can 
move  a  convention  to  extend  the  suffrage  in  a  backward 
state,  the  fact  of  natural-right  philosophy  exerting  an 
influence  in  that  state  is  highly  significant  and  must  be 
given  credit  for  the  extension  brought  about.  The 
great,  long,"  tiresome^  pseudoscientific  arguments  about 
the  biological  inferiority  of  the  negro  race  and  dis- 
putations on  what  the  apostle  Paul  thought  about  women 
make  the  modern  statesmen  quite  impatient.  Yet  these 
very  arguments  have  their  place  in  the  composition  of 
forces  making  ultimately  for  broader  suffrage.  It  is  the 
function  of  this  work  to  trace  the  inception  and  the 
influence  of  these  forces. 

The  fundamental,  significant  starting-point,  that  is, 
a  statement  of  the  property  test  immediately  after  the 
Revolution,  has  been  compactly  presented,  and  also  a 
skimming  outline  of  the  appropriate  materials  to  use  for 
building  on  to  it.  Now  it  is  necessary  to  amplify  the 
statement  of  suffrage  qualifications  after  the  Revolution 
and  then  plunge  into  the  process  of  development. 


CHAPTER  II 

THE  WEAKENING  OF  PROPERTY  TESTS  AND  THE 
BEGINNINGS  OF  THE  FOREIGNER  PROBLEM 

There  is  very  little  to  be  found  in  the  suffrage  require- 
ments estabHshed  during  the  Revolutionary  period  that 
is  of  any  significance  outside  of  the  property  and  the 
taxpaying  requirements.  A  property  or  taxpaying  test 
is  so  strict  in  itself  that  the  need  for  other  limitations  is 
not  present.  When  a  man  owned  property  or  paid  state 
taxes  it  was  frequently  considered  quite  unnecessary 
even  to  limit  the  term  of  residence.  There  was  practi- 
cally no  race  problem  to  deal  with,  for  the  northern 
states  did  not  concern  themselves  greatly  about  the  few 
free  negroes  who  might  dwell  in  the  state,  and  in  the 
South  it  was  not  necessary  specifically  to  exclude 
negroes.  The  negro  problem,  as  will  be  seen  later, 
always  assumed  most  disagreeable  proportions  in  the 
border  states.  The  foreigner  was  not  yet  a  problem, 
although  he  was  soon  destined  to  become  one.  Any 
man  who  identified  himself  with  the  newly  created 
government  was  not  called  upon  to  give  technical  evi- 
dence of  citizenship. 

Where  sex  was  not  mentioned,  and  it  seldom  was 
except  incidentally,  the  presumption  of  course  was  that 
only  men  could  vote.  The  word  "freeman "  is  frequently 
used  and  gives  weight  to  this  presumption,  if  indeed  any 
weight  is  needed.  Such  undesirable  persons  as  paupers, 
idiots,  the  insane,  etc.,  were  practically  excluded  by  the 


Property  Tests  and  the  Foreigner  Problem        21 

property  test,  and  the  need  for  specifically  disqualifying 
them  did  not  appear  until  the  property  test  was  gone. 
Exclusion  for  crime  was  not  a  general  practice  until 
somewhat  later  and  possibly  for  the  same  reason. 
Relatively  few  criminals  would  be  found  among  the 
property  owners  and  taxpayers.  The  age  of  twenty-one 
was  universally  prescribed. 

So  it  happens  that  the  revolutionary  constitutions  are 
relatively  free  of  any  qualifying  phrases  except  those 
concerning  property.  Georgia  and  Maryland,  however, 
restricted  the  suffrage  to  white  males,  and  the  former 
state  required  six  months'  residence  in  the  county,  while 
Maryland  demanded  one  year.  South  Carolina  used 
the  same  terms  and  in  addition  perpetuated  the  old 
Colonial  restriction,  *' Acknowledge  the  being  of  a  God 
and  belief  in  a  future  state  of  rewards  and  punishments.'' 
That  this  should  have  found  a  place  in  the  constitution 
of  1778  is  rather  unusual,  but  may  have  been  an  over- 
sight. No  evidence  seems  to  be  available  that  it  ever  was 
enforced,  and  in  the  constitution  of  ten  years  later  it  is 
gone.  North  Carolina,  New  Jersey,  and  Pennsylvania 
required  a  residence  in  the  state  of  one  year;  New  York, 
six  months  in  the  county. 

There  is  practically  nothing  else  worthy  of  note  in 
these  constitutional  provisions,  but  it  will  be  seen  that 
before  the  century  was  ended  the  constitutions  became 
very  much  more  explicit  about  age,  sex,  and  residence, 
but  did  not  branch  out  much  farther,  even  to  the  question 
of  citizenship.  While  the  property  qualification  rapidly 
disappeared,  the  new  problems  that  necessarily  followed 
in  its  wake  did  not  show  themselves  at  once,  and  there 
is  a  period  during  which  the  polls  were  not  carefully 


22  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

guarded  against  undesirables.  The  need  was  not  at  once 
appreciated. 

Scarcely  a  year  after  the  Revolution  was  over  a 
constitutional  convention  was  called  in  New  Hampshire 
to  draft  a  new  organic  law  for  that  state.  The  con- 
servative restriction  of  the  Colonial  period  was  aban- 
doned and  in  its  stead  a  simple  taxpaying  qualification 
was  provided.  Two  years'  residence  in  the  town  was 
required,  but  outside  of  that  limitation  every  male 
twenty-one  years  of  age  who  had  paid  a  poll  tax  enjoyed 
the  elective  franchise.  Georgia  did  practically  the  same 
thing  five  years  later,  in  1789.  A  constitutional  con- 
vention drew  up  a  constitution  which  was  put  into  effect 
and  which  abandoned  even  the  small  ten-pound  property 
qualification  which  had  been  maintained  up  to  that  time. 
Those  who  had  paid  a  tax  within  a  year  received  the 
franchise  under  this  constitution. 

It  is  to  be  observed  then  that  less  than  ten  years  after 
the  Revolution  two  states,  one  at  the  North,  the  other 
at  the  South,  abandoned  their  property  tests  and  sub- 
stituted taxpaying.  These  facts  clearly  illustrate  the 
tendency  of  the  time  and  mark  the  gradual  process  of  the 
property- test  breakdown:  from  property  in  real  estate 
to  any  sort  of  property,  and  then  simply  to  taxpaying. 
Seldom  did  the  property  test  give  way  altogether; 
almost  invariably  it  passed  more  or  less  rapidly  through 
these  stages. 

Six  states  revised  their  constitutions  and  three  new 
states  joined  the  Union  in  the  remaining  decade  of  the 
century.  The  constitutions  of  the  three  new  states  are 
particularly  significant.  In.  1791  Vermont  came  in  with 
her  old  constitution  of  1777,  which  was  the  most  liberal 


Property  Tests  and  the  Foreigner  Problem        23 

of  all  in  the  country.  Vermont  was  the  only  state 
where  full  manhood  suffrage  prevailed.  The  only 
requirement  was  one  year's  residence  in  the  state  and 
'* quiet  and  peaceable  behavior."  This  quaint  phrase 
remained  for  many  years  in  the  organic  law  of  Vermont, 
and,  while  of  course  it  is  quite  meaningless  from  a 
practical  point  of  view,  sentimental  considerations 
prevented  its  being  eradicated.  No,  property  or  tax-  ^^ 
paying  test  ever  prevailed  in  Vermont,  and  it  is  not 
unlikely  that  this  liberality  had  some  influence  on  the 
neighboring  state  of  New  Hampshire,  which  soon 
abandoned  her  taxpaying  test.  Vermont  provided 
herself  with  a  new  constitution  two  years  later,  but  the 
suffrage  qualification  was  not  changed,  and  any  man  who 
was  of  quiet  and  peaceable  behavior  could  still  vote  if  he 
satisfied  the  residence  requirement. 

Still  the  balance,  North  and  South,  obtained,  and 
Kentucky  joined  the  Union  in._i792  with  a  constitution 
just  as  liberal.  It  illustrates  the  fact  that  forces  making 
for  more  liberal  suffrage  were  not  localized.  The  spirit 
of  democracy  was  in  the  blood  of  all  the  people  both 
North  and  South,  and  when  there  were  no  strictly 
materialistic  considerations  at  stake,  as  in  the  struggles 
over  commercial  policy,  the  reaction  of  the  democratic 
mind  was  likely  to  be  the  same  all  over  the  country. 
The  problem  of  suffrage  was  not  yet  tied  up  with  the  y 
immigration  problem,  the  free  negro,  and  woman's 
rights.  To  many  men  it  was  simply  just  and  not  at 
all  alarming  to  admit  their  native  white  neighbors  to  the 
polls  whether  they  had  property  or  not.  Of  course  in 
many  of  the  states  vested  interests  succeeded  in  retaining 
the  old  property  tests  in  one  form  or  another,  but  the 


24  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

element  of  race  and  national  prejudice  found  nothing  to 
cleave  to  at  this  time,  and  hence  the  same  tendency  of 
gradually  wearing  down  the  property  test  is  to  be  found 
both  North  and  South.  Kentucky  admitted  to  the 
polls  all  free  males  who  had  lived  in  the  state  two  years 
and  in  the  county  one  year.  This  was  a  rather  high 
residence  requirement. 

The  remaining  state  to  join  the  Union  before  the 
eighteenth  century  had  passed  was  Tennessee  in  1796. 
Here  are  exhibited  the  relics  of  conservatism  right  next 
door  to  Kentucky.  Quite  likely  the  sentiment  in  the 
two  states  was  very  similar  indeed,  and  the  fact  that 
Tennessee  inserted  a  freehold  property  requirement 
shows  that  the  country  was  really  passing  through  a 
transition  period.  The  extent  of  liberality  in  Kentucky 
was  just  enough  greater  to  result  in  an  abandonment  of 
property  tests,  while  in  the  neighbor  state  the  same 
liberal  spirit  could  not  quite  gain  full  expression.  These 
states  were  still  on  the  halfway  stage,  and  very  slight 
influence  could  have  swayed  the  balance  either  way, 
whereas  a  few  years  later  a  property  test  could  not  have 
stood  a  chance.  Tennessee  required  all  voters  to  possess 
a  freehold,  without  stipulating  size  or  value,  and  to  live 
six  months  in  the  county.  It  was  the  real  estate  test 
of  course,  but  it  could  not  have  been  a  slighter  test 
surely. 

In  South  Carolina  the  forces  of  conservatism  also 
held  control.  A  new  constitution  was  adopted  in  this 
state  in  1790  and  retained  the  property  test  with  a  tax- 
paying  alternative.  Fifty  acres,  or  a  town  lot,  or  pay- 
ment of  three  shillings  in  taxes  was  required.  So  it 
will  be  seen  that  the  property  test  was  at  a  very  low  ebb. 


Property  Tests  and  the  Foreigner  Problem        25 

Pennsylvania  in  the  same  year  retained  the  old  provision 
in  a  new  constitution,  m^e  payment  of  a  state  or  a 
county  tax.  Both  states  had  a  two-year  residence 
requirement. 

New. Hampshire  in  1792  abandoned  even  her  tax- 
paying  requirement  and  got  into  a  class  with  her  neigh- 
bor Vermont.  Here  the  steps  in  the  breakdown  of 
property  tests  are  most  strikingly  illustrated.  Just 
before  the  Revolution  New  Hampshire  had  a  high 
property  test.  Shortly  after  the  Revolution  this  was 
abandoned  and  a  taxpaying  qualification  was  substituted. 
Then  in  1792  all  property  restrictions  were  swept  away. 

Delaware  in  1792  took  the  first  step  in  this  process, 
and  in  the  constitution  of  that  year  is  to  be  found  the 
mere  payment  of  a  state  or  county  tax  as  a  requirement. 
So  in  the  North  is  found  a  situation  identical  with  the 
South — neighbor  states,  one  with  the  property  test,  one 
without,  and  another  halfway  between.  The  gradual 
transition  was  taking  place  everywhere.  Georgia  in 
1798  introduced  a  new  sort  of  compromise  with  the  old 
regime  and  required  that  all  voters  must  have  paid  all 
ta^xes  assessed  against  them.  Obviously  this  was  not  a 
property  or  taxpaying  test,  but  it  was  just  a  trifling 
concession  to  the  old  conviction  that  suffrage  ought  to  be 
tied  up  in  some  way  with  property  and  taxes.  It  is  the 
first  evidence  to  be  found  of  a  practice  later  very  general 
of  exploiting  the  suffrage  laws  to  coerce  recalcitrant 
citizens  to  meet  civic  obligations.  Whether  this  was 
done  consciously  or  not  is  hard  to  say.  Probably  the 
phrase  was  inserted  merely  as  a  last  tribute  to  the  old 
scheme  of  things,  and  the  idea  of  using  it  as  a  club  in  the 
hands  of  the  tax  collector  did  not  develop  until  later. 


26  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

Kentucky  made  the  last  contribution  of  the  century 
to  the  suffrage  history  and  in  the  constitution  of  1799 
gave  indication  of  the  looming  race  problem  by  specifi- 
cally excluding  negroes,  mulattoes,  and  Indians  from  the 
polls.  Property  and  taxes  had  ceased  to  be  a  problem  in 
Kentucky,  and  now  this  state  entered  upon  the  century- 
long  struggle  with  the  black  man,  who  sought  political 
power.  Kentucky  is  one  of  those  border  states  where  the 
forces  North  and  South  have  always  met.  Farther 
south  the  negro  was  effectively  subjugated;  farther 
north  he  was  not  a  problem.  On  the  border  line  he  was 
an  everlasting  torment. 

These  fifteen  years  during  which  the  events  recited 
above  took  place  were  characterized  by  the  development 
of  a  democratic  philosophy  distinctively  American. 
As  the  people  were  now  actually  independent  of  external 
control,  the  management  of  the  political  institutions  of 
the  country  came  to  be  of  greater  interest  to  them,  for 
the  personal  contact  and  sense  of  individual  responsi- 
bility were  more  acute  even  than  had  been  the  case  in 
the  past,  and  that  is  saying  a  great  deal.  This  stimu- 
lated interest  in  public  affairs  quite  naturally  soon  came 
to  focus  on  the  suffrage  issue,  and  as  the  property  test 
began  to  fail  here  and  there  in  continuing  response  to  the 
inevitable  tendency  begun  many  decades  before,  the 
conservative  elements  came  to  look  with  jealousy  upon 
their  privileges  and  to  gird  themselves  for  the  struggle 
that  must  come.  On  the  other  hand,  the  ultra- 
Democrats,  led  by  such  men  as  Jefferson,  invoked  the 
philosophy  of  the  Revolution  in  order  to  justify  greater 
strides  toward  popular  control  of  government.  This 
story  has  been  told  by  every  historian  of  the  period  and 


Property  Tests  and  the  Foreigner  Problem        27 

it  is  not  necessary  to  retell  it  here.  It  is  enough  to  say- 
that  men  soon  took  sides,  identifying  themselves  either 
with  the  conservative  element  or  else  with  the  radical 
Republicans.  Both  groups  had  need  to  turn  their 
attention  to  the  suffrage  question,  for  in  the  exercise  of 
the  elective  franchise  men  believed  that  they  were 
getting  a  full  measure  of  democracy.  The  struggle  for 
broader  suffrage  necessitated  a  battle  in  each  and  every 
state,  and  for  this  reason  historians  have  been  inclined 
to  pass  it  over  lightly,  for  the  progress  in  each  state  was 
somewhat  different. 

Theories  about  suffrage  took  form  and  found  con^ 
Crete  expression  later  on.  The  proposition  that  men 
should  vote  because  of  right,  in  virtue  of  natural  law,  or 
in  virtue  of  economic  and  social  status  in  the  community, 
and  the  more  impersonal  doctrine  of  the  good  of  the 
state  came  in  for  closer  scrutiny  and  were  the  subjects 
of  conscious  deliberation,  whereas  in  Colonial  days  they 
were  in  the  vague  background.  The  lines  of  battle  were 
mapped  out  and  doctrines  formulated  by  both  the 
conservative  and  the  radical  elements  that  were  to  serve 
as  bases  for  the  next  half-century  of  dispute.  For 
although  there  is  little  evidence  of  conflict  on  the  suffrage 
issue  until  well  into  the  nineteenth  century,  the  doctrines 
which  justified  the  expansion  of  the  franchise  were 
clearly  enunciated  many  years  earlier.  Massachusetts,  \ 
Pennsylvania,  New  York,  and  Virginia  were  the  great 
chief  centers  of  controversy.  It  was  in  these  large, 
populous,  and  wealthy  states  where  conservatism  held 
on  longest  and  the  struggle  was  most  bitter,  and  where 
the  best  statesmanship  and  political  talent  this  country 
ever  boasted  of  was  engaged. 


28  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

Ideal  starting-points  could  readily  be  found  in  the 
abstractions  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  Here 
is  a  resolution  passed  in  the  Massachusetts  constitutional 
convention  of  1779:^  "Resolved,  That  it  is  the  essence  of 
a  free  republic  that  the  people  be  governed  by  fixed  laws 
of  their  own  making."  This  particular  convention  was 
perfectly  honest  in  this  declaration  and  still  considered 
it  thoroughly  consistent  to  restrict  ''the  people,"  who 
should  govern  the  state,  to  property  owners.  Such  reso- 
lutions as  this  were  later  turned  against  the  very  men 
who  made  them.  Abstract  propositions  of  right  con- 
tinually proved  to  be  boomerangs  and  struck  with  telling 
force.  ''All  elections  ought  to  be  free,  and  all  the  male 
inhabitants  of  this  commonwealth,  having  sufficient 
qualifications,  have  an  equal  right  to  elect  officers."^ 
The  little  phrase  about  having  sufficient  qualifications 
was  weak  indeed  against  the  contention  that  all  the 
male  inhabitants  had  an  equal  right  to  elect  officers. 

In  the  Pennsylvania  convention  of  1789  all  joined 
heartily  in  the  following  statement  and  had  it  printed  in 
large  bold  type : 

All  power  being  originally  vested  in,  is  derived  from,  the 
people,  and  all  free  governments  originate  from  their  will,  are 
founded  on  their  authority,  and  instituted  for  their  peace,  safety, 
and  happiness;  and  for  the  advancement  thereof;  they  have,  at 
all  times,  an  unalienable  and  indefeasible  right  to  alter,  reform,  or 
aboHsh  their  government  in  such  manner  as  they  may  think 
proper.3 

Y'Tln  spite  of  this  acceptance  of  an  abstract  principle  a 
\     vigorous  effort  was  early  made  in  the  convention  to 

^  Mass.  Conv.,  1778-79,  Journal,  p.  24. 

'  Ihid.,  p.  194.  3  Pa.  Conv.,  1789,  Minutes,  p.  45. 


Property  Tests  and  the  Foreigner  Problem        29 

establish  a  property  qualification  for  suffrage/  Almost 
feverish  eagerness  was  manifest  to  get  such  a  restriction 
in,  and  it  was  proposed  almost  before  the  business  of  the 
convention  was  well  under  way.  Eventually  there  was 
apprehension  that  it  would  not  carry,  and  it  did  not; 
in  its  stead  the  usual  compromise  of  a  taxpaying  quali- 
fication was  introduced.  Both  these  large  states  and 
their  smaller  neighbors  were  extravagant  in  formal 
announcements  of  the  rights  of  "the  people.'^  But 
^Massachusetts  considered  ''the  people"  to  be  the 
£^prpperty  owners.  Pennsylvania  was  one  step  in  advance 
of  Massachusetts  and  considered  "the  people"  to  be  the 
taxpayers.  Abstract  pronouncement  sounded  well  until 
specific  definition  of  the  terms  was  sought,  and  when  the 
Radicals  said  that "  the  people  "  included  all  men  twenty- 
one  years  of  age  the  fight  was  on  in  earnest. 

Two  very  interesting  questions  arose  in  connection 
with  the  proposition  that  men  had  a  right  to  vote.  The 
first  had  to  do  with  representation,  the  other  with  the 
relation  of  the  non- taxpayer  to  the  state.  As  to  repre- 
sentation, the  old  revolutionary  cry  of  no  taxation 
without  representation  was  carried  over  to  apply  to  indi- 
viduals and  was  invoked  against  the  property  interests. 
How  effective  it  was  can  be  seen  by  the  quick  breakdown 
of  the  landholding  qualification.  The  man  who  held 
large  amounts  of  personal  property  on  which  he  paid 
taxes  inveighed  against  the  prostitution  of  the  revolu- 
tionary philosophy  which  left  him  without  a  ballot. 
His  protestations  were  so  well  taken  and  so  effectively 
pressed  that  real  estate  tests  without  personalty  or 
taxpaying  alternatives  were  very  short-lived.  Another 
*  Ibid.,  p.  37. 


3C)  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

matter  in  connection  with  representation  was  not  so 
easily  disposed  of :  government  should  be  by  the  consent 
of  the  governed.  Certainly  the  "governed"  were  more 
than  the  property  owners,  more  than  the  taxpayers, 
even  more  than  the  men  over  twenty-one  years  of  age. 
Here  then  was  one  of  the  favorite  slogans,  which  has 
persisted  to  this  day  and  yet  can  never  be  fully  realized. 
The  taxpayer  fought  his  battle  against  the  real  estate 
owners  and  won  easily,  then  he  had  to  defend  himself 
against  the  consent-of-the-governed  doctrine.  In  spite 
of  its  vagueness  it  proved  to  be  the  strongest  argument 
the  Radicals  had  ever  used  to  break  the  grip  of  the 
taxpayers. 

The  other  important  question  mentioned  above  was 
concerned  with  the  position  of  the  non-taxpayer  in  his 
economic  relation  to  the  government.  Governed  he 
surely  was,  and  perhaps  he  was  entitled  to  vote  simply 
by  virtue  of  that  fact.  But  the  practical  mind  at  once 
inquired  to  see  if  the  non-taxpayer  contributed  anything 
to  the  well-being  of  the  state  and  was  entitled  to  a  voice 
in  rnaiiagement.  It  is  a  curious  thing  that  the  non- 
taxpayer  won  the  ballot  without  ever  justifying  himself 
on  economic  grounds  in  the  minds  of  a  vast  majority  of 
men.  That  is,  men  believed  in  those  days,  and  a  vast 
majority  believe  today,  that  only  the  taxpayer  con- 
tributes to  the  support  of  the  government.  And  the 
curious  thing  is  that  the  non-taxpayer  has  won  his  way 
without  invoking  his  very  best  argument,  and  in  fact 
not  realizing  that  he  had  it.  The  point  was  very  rarely 
made  that  the  man  who  owns  property  and  pays  taxes  on 
it  merely  happens  to  be  the  channelJiljipugh  which  the 
portion  of  the  social  wealth  necessary  to  support  the 


Property  Tests  and  the  Foreigner  Problem        31 

government  reaches  the  government  treasury.  The 
taxpayer  is  not  to  be  praised  nor  given  special  recognition 
and  privilege  because  of  this.  Those  who  augment  the 
social  wealth,  whether  they  pay  taxes  or  not,  are  the 
ones  who  ultimately  support  the  government.  Because 
property  has  been  the  most  convenient  medium  through 
which  to  tax  the  people  much  misapprehension  has 
grown  up  aroiind  itr""TErnon-taxpa5dng  producer,  it 
is  true,  has  deceived  himself  in  the  matter  and  has  often 
looked  with  equanimity  upon  extravagant  government 
expenditures,  thinking  that  he  contributed  nothing  to 
pay  the  debt.  And  this  has  given  rise  to  the  more  or 
les's  well-grounded  opinion  that  the  non-taxpaying 
element  is  likely  to  be  careless  of  government  expenses. 
And  yet  there  always  seems  to  have  been  an  undefined, 
not  clearly  recognized  feeling  that  in  some  way  even  the 
most  insignificant  individual  has  an  economic  stake  in 
the  community.  Defenders  of  property  rights  have 
always  been  able  to  hold  the  floor  in  debate  and  over- 
whelm their  opponents  with  arguments  that  have  not 
been  refuted  even  when  they  could  have  been. 

But  the  inevitable  working  out  of  economic  law  was 
bound  to  affect  the  situation  in  spite  of  ignorance  and 
prejudice.  The  non-taxpayer  would  not  attempt  to 
prove  in  a  forensic  way  that  he  actually  did  contribute 
to  the  support  of  the  government  simply  because  he 
was  a  producer  and  augmented  the  social  wealth  from 
which  all  taxes  must  be  drawn.  Furthermore,  he  did  not 
have  the  clarity  of  vision  to  realize  that  property  owners 
were  mere  instruments  through  which  the  government 
tapped  the  social  wealth  without  any  particular  sacrifice 
to  the  owners.     But  he  knew  that  he  ought  to  take  an 


32  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

interest  in  the  economic  welfare  of  the  state  and  more 
or  less  blindly  demanded  the  ballot,  trusting  for  support 
in  the  already  outworn  natural-right  philosophy  and 
government  by  the  consent-of-the-governed  doctrine. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  only  in  the  present 
generation  is  the  truth  about  the  relation  of  taxpayers 
and  non-taxpayers  to  the  expense  of  government  begin- 
ning to  break  in  upon  the  public  mind.  A  peculiar 
sanctity  has  always  embraced  the  property  owner 
because  he  paid  taxes.  He  has  been  inclined  to  think 
that  the  goverimient  belongs  to  him  because  he  supports 
it  personally,  and  he  believes  that  he  confers  great 
benefits  upon  the  rest  of  mankind  by  supporting  an 
institution  which  functions  for  them  as  well  as  for  him. 
As  intimated  before,  men  have  almost  unconsciously 
repudiated  the  doctrine  without  knowing  how  to  combat 
it  in  a  rational  way.  Jf  property  owners  did  not  find  it 
profitable  to  be  property  owners,  in  spite  of  the  sup- 
posed special  burden  of  taxation,  they  would  cease  to 
be  property  owners.  There  could  be  no  better  proof 
of  the  fact  that  they  are  not  the  benefactors  they  pose 
as  being.  If  it  were  possible  to  administer  the  property 
tax  fairly  the  property  owner  would  not  feel  the  burden 
of  taxation  any  more  than  the  non-taxpaying  laborer 
who  rented  part  of  the  property.  Under  normal  condi- 
tions the  tax  would  be  shifted  and  spread  out  over  all 
people  maintaining  economic  intercourse  in  the  com- 
munity. The  only  reason  why  the  property  owner  is 
overburdened  with  taxes  is  because  the  general-property 
tax  is  not  equitably  administered.  Overwhelming 
authority  today  declares  that  the  general-property  tax 
never  can  be  equitably  administered,  and  the  income 


Property  Tests  and  the  Foreigner  Problem        33 

tax  is  being  exploited  to  take  its  place.  Thereby  the 
obstacles  to  the  normal  working  put  of  economic  law 
when  property  was  the  immediate  object  of  taxation  are 
circumvented  and  the  real  situation  begins  to  be  mani- 
fest. The  wage-earner,  the  real  producer,  is  called  upon 
to  pay  his  share  directly  toward  the  support  of  govern- 
ment; and,  contrary  to  the  situation  in  former  years, 
he  now  knows  that  he  is  doing  it.  Students  of  economy 
know  that  he  has  always  been  doing  it;  yet  not  a  glimmer 
of  the  truth  seems  to  have  permeated  the  darkness  of 
earlier  years,  and  it  is  not  to  be  wondered  at  when  such 
profound  economists  as  John  Stuart  Mill  and  such 
shrewd  political  scientists  as  Benjamin  Franklin  labored 
under  the  delusion.^  But  the  subconscious  realization 
of  actually  having  an  economic  interest  in  the  state 
necessarily  had  its  effect,  and  the  defenders  of  property 
were  told  that  in  spite  of  their  learned,  unrefuted  argu- 
ments they  must  be  wrong. 

The  conflict  over  the  position  which  property  owners 
and  the  landless  were  to  hold  in  the  new  government  was 
almost  a  party  issue.  The  Federal  party  members,  who 
had  carried  the  constitution  through  a  stormy  sea  of 
criticism,  felt  that  they  were  vindicated  by  popular 
support  and  aimed  to  make  more  secure  than  ever  the 
interests  of  the  landed  class.  The  old  Revolutionary 
theories  which  had  justified  the  Rebellion  were  neces- 
sarily modified  by  the  fact  of  the  Rebellion  being  actually 
accomplished.  There  was  no  longer  any  occasion  to 
foster  the  rebellious  spirit.  On  the  other  hand,  the  press- 
ing need  of  erecting  an  effective  government  was  pain- 
fully evident.    Thus  it  was  that  the  leaders  abandoned 

» Works,  IV,  221. 


34  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

their  revolutionary  theories  and  turned  to  more  con- 
servative philosophy.  It  should  not  be  inferred  that 
these  men  who  had  so  valorously  conducted  the  late 
war  actually  now  repudiated  the  doctrine  they  had 
previously  invoked.  They  merely  said  nothing  more 
about  it  and  devoted  their  attention  to  establishing  an 
effective  government.  In  spite  of  the  old  theories  of 
natural  right  and  consent  of  the  governed  they  were  not 
in  the  least  reluctant  to  base  political  privilege  upon 
financial  status  and  were  quite  determined  to  con- 
centrate political  power  in  the  hands  of  the  property 
interests.     This  of  course  meant  a  very  narrow  group. 

Although  the  Federalists  were  defeated  and  discred- 
ited more  or  less  by  the  next  generation  of  Jeffersonian 
Democrats,  there  is  good  reason  to  respect  and  admire 
them  for  saving  the  nation  from  almost  certain  dis- 
solution. The  troubles  following  the  Revolution  were 
calculated  to  drive  thoughtful  men  into  conservatism. 
The  Articles  of  Confederation  were  such  a  hopeless 
failure!  The  contempt  for  law  and  order  and  the 
general  civic  unresponsibility  were  so  widespread  that 
the  Federalists  were  determined  to  stand  by  their  guns 
and  protect  the  newborn  nation  from  a  wreck  on  the 
chaotic  sea  of  democracy.  These  Federalists  were 
leaders  in  their  respective  states,  particularly  the  three 
great  states  of  New  York,  Massachusetts,  and  Virginia, 
and  there  they  succeeded  in  keeping  the  reins  of  govern- 
ment in  the  hands  of  the  few.^  Where  the  old  argument 
that  property  owners  had  a  special  exclusive  right  to 
suffrage  was  not  availing  they  unhesitatingly  declared 

^  J.  S.  Bassett,  The  Federalist  System;  C.  E.  Mcrriam,  American 
Political  Theories;  John  Adams,  Works;  Federalist. 


Property  Tests  and  the  Foreigner  Problem        35 

that  the  good  of  the  state  was  involved.  The  leading 
statesmen  of  the  day  repeatedly  declared  in  writings  and 
from  the  platform  that  the  salvation  of  the  country 
depended  upon  keeping  the  untrustworthy,  ignorant 
populace  from  the  ballot  box  and  leaving  the  government 
in  the  hands  of  the  able  and  the  well-born,  not  alone 
because  of  their  right,  but  for  the  good  of  the  state. 

The  first  years  of  the  nineteenth  century  were  domi- 
nated by  the  Jeffersonian  party  of  Antifederalists^ 
Jefferson  had  always  been  a  leader  in  demanding  for  the 
people  full  participation  in  the  government.  His 
program  involved  a  very  broad  suffrage,  and  while  it 
was  not  achieved  in  his  day  the  influence  of  these  years 
was  very  marked. 

^^  Jefferson  in  contrast  to  the  Federalists  had  un- 
bounded confidence  in  the  people.  He  had  great  faith 
in  popular  institutions.  He  believed  that  natural  in- 
stincts would  lead  men  right  if  they  were  left  unham- 
pered, and  he  wanted  no  governmental  clogs  put  upon 
the  means  of  popular  expression.  He  saw  great  poten- 
tialities in  the  people.  He  wanted  the  individual  to 
have  the  widest  possible  opportunity  for  development 
and  self-expression.  This  party,  called  the  Democratic- 
Republican,  was  the  first  to  be  effectively  organized,  and 
the  purpose  of  the  organization  as  handled  by  Jefferson 
was  to  reach  out  and  down  to  the  most  insignificant 
groups  and  provide  for  them  a  medium  to  express  their 
will  through  a  machine  that  could  embrace  them  all.^ 
Possibilities  for  expression  stimulated  interest  in  local 
organization  of  the  party  machine,  and  real  popular 

^  A.  C.  McLaughlin,  The  Courts,  the  Constitution,  and  Parties; 
Edward  Channing,  Jefersonian  System;  Thomas  Jefferson,  Works, 


$6  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

goveriunent  came  into  being.  Of  course  all  this  involved 
a  broader  suffrage,  and  while  it  did  not  come  at  once  the 
demand  became  increasingly  stronger.  Jefferson  and 
his  party  fostered  local  government  institutions,  small 
government  units  such  as  the  township,  which  would  be 
close  to  the  people  and  stir  up  their  latent  interest  in 
government  affairs.  Previous  to  this  time  government 
institutions  had  been  somewhat  far  removed  from  the  ken 
of  the  average  man,  except  perhaps  in  the  New  England 
towns.  The  pioneer  in  the  growing  states  was  not  in 
touch  with  government  institutions,  and  the  Jefferso- 
nian  party  saved  him  from  complete  alienation  by 
providing  local  organizations,  governmental  and  extra- 
governmental,  to  occupy  his  attention  and  tie  him  to 
the  central  government.  In  view  of  this  a  wider  suffrage 
was  inevitable,  and  while  the  fruits  of  this  doctrine  did 
not  appear  until  some  years  later  the  impetus  provided 
at  this  time  must  not  be  neglected. 

In  the  twenty  years  from.  1796,  when  Tennessee 
joined  the  Union,  until  181 6  only  two  more  states  were 
admitted.  They  were  Ohio  in  1803  and  Louisiana  in 
181 2.  The  Ohio  constitution  was  very  ^liberal  and 
exhibited  several  new  features  that  are  worthy  of  note. 
The  property  qualification  was  here  simmered  down 
to  its  lowest  terms,  for  there  is  only  a  mere  trace 
of  it.  In  order  to  vote,  one  must  have  paid  a  county 
tax  or  else  have  worked  out  a  tax  on  the  public  high- 
way. Some  historians  have  hailed  this  low  requirement 
as  a  very  significant  step  in  the  d3ang  out  of  prop- 
erty qualifications,^  but  after  all  it  is  a  rather  striking 
evidence  of  the  hold  which  the  conservative  element  still 

'  J.  B.  McMaster,  History  of  the  People  of  the  United  States,  III,  146. 


Property  Tests  and  the  Foreigner  Problem        37 

had  that  even  this  sort  of  qualification  could  obtain  in 
this  new  western  state  where  radical  philosophy  found 
most  favorable  conditions  to  flourish.  Jeffersonian 
democracy  fastened  its  very  roots  in  such  states  as  Ohio, 
populated  by  a  vigorous,  adventurous,  and  sturdy 
proletariat  just  awakening  to  the  possibilities  of  political 
power.  Ohio  in  1803  was  far  along  the  road  to  manhood 
suffrage  but  still  clung  to  a  last  remnant  of  the  transition 
characteristics — a  compromise  of  some  sort — a  last  weak, 
expiring  tribute  to  the  property  interests.  Vermont  had 
come  in  without  any  limitations,  but  Vermont  can  hardly 
be  said  to  have  been  such  a  significant  state  as  Ohio. 
Ohio  was  characteristic  of  the  new  West.  Property 
never  had  a  firm  hold  here,  and  the  struggle  of  property 
interests  against  the  new  democracy  was  never  staged  in 
the  new  states.  That  struggle  was  carried  on  only  in  the 
original  thirteen  states,  and  the  most  significant  stages 
in  the  defeat  of  property  interests  must  be  found  there. 
A  losing  cause  could  hardly  be  expected  to  make  a  play 
foFnew  conquests.  Yet  of  course  Ohio  indicated  that 
with  the  coming  years  all  the  new  territory  would  be 
organized  and  formed  into  states  likely  to  be  not  less 
hberal  than  was  Ohio,  and  this  meant  ultimate  defeat 
for  the  old  eastern  conservatism,  for  that  philosophy  had 
no  room  for  expansion. 

The  Ohio  constitution  limited  the  suffrage  to  white 
males,  said  nothing  about  citizenship,  and  required  one 
year's  residence  in  the  state.  Here  also  is  found  a 
suffrage  law  expHcitly  guarding  the  polls  against  an 
unsafe  element  looked  upon  as  having  no  political  rights 
the  state  was  bound  to  respect.  Idiots  and  insane  were' 
specifically  excluded,  also  those  convicted  of  bribery, 


> 


38  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

perjury,  or  any  infamous  crimes.  Soldiers,  sailors,  and 
marines  were  disfranchised  by  not  being  permitted  to 
gain  a  residence  in  virtue  of  being  located  in  the  state  on 
government  orders.  In  all  these  matters  Ohio  marked 
out  a  policy  that  has  been  followed  ever  since  with 
diverse  variations.  For  the  good  of  the  state,  consti- 
tutions in  the  future  carefully  excluded  the  criminal  and 
grossly  incompetent  persons  from  the  exercise  of  the 
suffrage.  At  this  early  period  Ohio  stood  almost  alone 
with  these  provisions,  and  while  they  are  not  of  great 
importance  they  show  the  foresight  that  was  evident 
everywhere  else  in  future  years. 

Louisiana  came  in  as  a  state  in  1812  with  a  taxpaying 
qualification,  but  there  was  a  rather  unusual  alternative 
provided.  One  must  have  paid  a  tax  within  a  year  or 
else  have  purchased  some  land  of  the  United  States 
government.  Of  course  the  idea  was  to  put  a  premium 
upon  homesteaders  and  to  encourage  expansion  into  the 
undeveloped  portions  of  the  state.  The  suffrage  laws 
have  always  been  exploited  more  or  less,  but  this  is  a 
unique  case.  The  other  formal  provisions  were  restric- 
tion to  white  males,  citizens  of  the  United  States,  and 
one  year's  residence  in  the  county. 

Previous  to  this  time  very  few  of  the  constitutions 
mentioned  citizenship.  Louisiana  marks  the  develop- 
ment of  suffrage  laws  into  better-rounded  and  intelligent 
form,  but  there  were  left  out  the  protecting  clauses 
against  criminals  and  the  mentally  deficient.  It  took 
some  years  to  bring  forth  a  really  complete  suffrage  law 
covering  all  the  essential  points  that  it  is  deemed  neces- 
sary to  touch  upon  today.  The  modern  law  usually 
deals  with  race,  sex,  citizenship,  age,  term  of  residence 


Property  Tests  and  the  Foreigner  Problem        39 

in  state  and  local  division,  special  qualifications,  such  as 
tax  or  educational,  exclusion  of  specified  groups,  as 
soldiers,  students,  inmates  of  institutions,  the  mentally 
deficient,  paupers,  and  exclusion  for  crime.  From  now 
on  it  will  be  well  to  note  to  what  extent  the  new  consti- 
tutions cover  these  points.  It  has  been  observed  that 
before  the  nineteenth  century  the  constitutions  were 
indefinite  about  race  and  sex,  although  these  matters 
were  taken  care  of  more  fully  in  the  series  of  constitu- 
tions immediately  following  the  revolutionary  group. 
From  this  time  on  it  will  be  found  that  a  great  majority 
of  the  constitutioiis  use  the  words  ^'white''  and  ''male." 
In  many  there  was  nothing  said  about  citizenship;  and 
they  seldom  distinguished  between  a  term  of  residence 
in  the  state  and  a  smaller  unit,  such  as  the  county  or  town. 
Nothing  practically  is  found,  except  in  Massachusetts 
in  1780,  about  exclusion  of  particular  groups.  But  now 
Qhio  takes  care  of  this  matter  of  special  groups,  while 
still  being  negligent  about  citizenship,  and  Louisiana 
reverses  the  situation.  As  has  been  mentioned  once 
before,  the  presence  of  property  and  taxpaying  quali- 
fications automatically  took  care  of  other  matters  in  the 
earlier  days,  or  in  the  few  cases  where  non-citizens  and 
others  who  might  be  considered  undesirable  could  vote 
because  of  satisf3dng  the  property  or  tax  test  the  abuse 
was  not  sufficiently  great  to  attract  any  attention. 
But  with  the  passing  of  these  provisions  the  bars  were 
thrown  down  to  great  throngs  of  undesirable  people,  and 
lawmakers  gradually  awoke  to  the  need  of  setting  up 
new  safeguards  that  previously  had  been  unnecessary. 
In  1809  and  18 10  the  property  test  received  two  more 
severe   blows.    By   an   act   passed   November,    1809, 


'^4 


40  Sufrage  in  the  United  States 

Maryland  abolished  all  tax  and  property  qualifications' 
and  specifically  restricted  the  suffrage  to  white  males, 
citizens  of  the  United  States,  resident  in  the  state  one 
year.  Thus  was  knocked  out  one  of  the  highest  quah- 
fications  remaining  after  the  Revolution — fifty  acres 
freehold  or  thirty  pounds  in  money.  This  is  particu- 
larly significant  because  Maryland  was  one  of  the  original 
states  and  lay  right  in  the  heart  of  conservatism,  sur- 
rounded by  states  which  clung  to  their  old  tests  for  many 
years  thereafter.  Yet  while  taking  down  the  barriers 
Maryland  took  no  steps  to  provide  in  the  constitution 
against  an  influx  of  undesirables. 

Equally  of  interest  is  it  to  observe  that  Sou.th  Caro- 
lina added  to  her  constitution  in  i8io„an  alternative  to 
the  fifty  acres  or  a  town  lot  prescribed  as  a  suffrage 
qualification  in  the  revolutionary  constitution.  The 
alternative  ranks  with  that  of  Louisiana  for  unusualness. 
It  was  simply  residence  in  the  election  district  for  six 
months,  as  well  as  a  two-year  residence  in  the  state.  Of 
course  this  simple  alternative  to  all  intents  and  purposes 
put  a  complete  end  to  the  property  test.  Two  years  was 
quite  a  high  residence  qualification,  and  that,  together 
with  the  new  six  months'  residence  as  an  alternative  to 
property  holding,  would  indicate  that  South  Carolina 
had  come  to  look  upon  permanence  and  stability  as  the 
most  desirable  factors  to  secure  the  good  of  the  state. 
Voters,  according  to  this  provision,  must  be  white  males, 
but  nothing  is  said  about  citizenship. 

The  federal  Constitution  contains  no  definition  of 
citizenship  whatever.  Citizenship  was  never  defined  by 
federal  law  until  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  was  added 

*  Laws  of  Maryland,  1806-10;  Nov.  Sess.,  1809,  chap.  Ixxxiii. 


Property  Tests  and  the  Foreigner  Problem        41 

to  the  Constitution  and  the  Civil  Rights  Act  was  passed 
in  1866/  Prior  to  this  time  the  question  of  citizenship 
was  covered  by  the  common  law,  which  has  upheld  the 
principle  oijus  soli,  by  which  all  persons  born  within  the 
limits  and  allegiance  of  the  United  States  are  deemed 
citizens.^  The  Fourteenth  Amendment  and  the  CiviP 
Rights  Act  did  no  more  than  to  declare  this  principle/ 
Therefore  in  virtue  of  the  common-law  rule  it  came  to 
pass  that  there  were  large  numbers  of  persons  of  foreign 
parentage  counted  as  United  States  citizens  in  the  years 
following  the  Revolution.  The  largest  group  of  such 
foreigners  of  course  were  Englishmen,  and  to  a  lesser 
extent  there  were  French  and  Irish.  There  were  still 
many  malcontents  in  the  country  during  the  first  decade 
after  the  Revolution.  The  number  of  those  who  counted 
themselves  Britishers  was  not  inconsiderable,  as  was 
evidenced  by  the  fact  that  at  the  time  of  the  Jay  Treaty 
with  England  in  1795  British  citizens  were  still  clamoring 
for  satisfaction  of  claims  allowed  to  them  in  the  Treaty 
of  1783.  The  matter  of  these  claims  was  always  a  very 
sore  point  with  the  patriots.  Certain  Englishmen  had 
Hved  among  the  colonists  and  refused  to  co-operate  in 
conducting  the  Revolution.  They  had  remained  loyal 
to  the  British  king  and  had  done  everything  they  dared 
to  do  and  could  do  to  hamper  and  defeat  the  cause  of 
liberty.  Small  wonder  it  was  then  that  their  property 
rights  were  often  invaded  by  the  eager  patriots  who  were 
fighting  for  liberty.  Much  personal  property  and  even 
real  estate  were  unceremoniously  appropriated  by  the 
armed  forces  of  the  Revolution,  at  least  under  some 

'  14  Stat,  at  Large  27,  chap,  xxxi;  U.S.  Comp.  Stat.,  1901,  p.  1268. 
^  F.  Van  Dyne,  Citizenship  of  the  United  StateSy  p.  4. 


42  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

sKght  color  of  legality,  although  often  it  was  barefaced 
robbery.  The  owners  were  badgered  and  driven  away 
from  their  homes  and  were  outcasts  in  their  own  country. 
In  many  instances  even  their  bodily  safety  depended 
upon  their  keeping  discreetly  quiet.  An  exactly  similar 
situation  is  bound  to  occur  in  almost  any  war.  Fervent 
patriotism  takes  no  heed  of  property  rights  in  spite  of 
international-  and  domestic-law  rules,  and  avowed 
sympathizers  with  the  enemy  cause  do  well  to  retain 
their  liberty,  to  say  nothing  of  their  property. 

One  can  readily  appreciate  then  what  happened 
during  the  Revolution  when  there  was  no  centralized 
and  powerful  government  to  take  care  of  the  situation. 
Cases  of  disloyalty  were  dealt  with  as  the  temper  of 
local  patriots  happened  to  dictate,  and  proceedings  were 
decidedly  informal  and  not  matters  of  record.  Hence 
when  the  war  came  to  a  close  in  1783  there  were  a  large 
number  of  British  loyalists  who  claimed  restoration  of 
their  property  and  various  other  concessions  in  satis- 
faction of  their  suffering  during  the  Revolution.  The 
United  States  diplomats  who  were  delegated  to  draw  up 
the  treaty  of  peace  with  England  were  very  able  men  and 
rightly  considered  that  they  represented  a  single,  unified 
nation.  In  view  of  this  it  was  only  proper  that  they 
should  take  notice  of  the  claims  of  Britishers  and  provide 
in  the  treaty  for  a  commission  to  sit  in  Philadelphia  and 
hear  these  claims  and  make  restitution  as  might  seem 
fit  and  equitable.  This  was  done,  and  the  commission 
was  organized  and  proceeded  to  its  work. 

However,  the  United  States  diplomats  were  in  an 
anomalous  situation,  as  they  very  soon  found  out.  They 
pretended  to  be  dealing  for  a  single,  unified  country;  they 


Property  Tests  and  the  Foreigner  Problem        43 

pretended  to  represent  the  United  States  just  as  British, 
German,  or  French  diplomats  would  represent  their 
countries.  And  it  was  expected  that  such  properly 
accredited  diplomats  would  conclude  treaties  of  authority 
which  the  nation  back  of  them  would  fulfil  without 
question.  But  when  the  United  States  diplomats 
returned  after  accomplishing  their  brilliant  success  they 
found  that  they  had  not  represented  one  single  nation 
but  thirteen  jealous,  spirited,  belligerent,  outrageously 
jproud  little  nations  that  were  not  going  to  observe  any 
treaty  provisions  unless  they  felt  like  it.  To  tell  Virginia 
what  she  must  do  was  like  stepping  on  a  hornet's  nest, 
and  staunch  New  Englanders  would  look  with  grim 
disdain  upon  attempts  to  coerce  them.  There  was  no 
central  government  legally  or  physically  able  to  carry 
out  these  provisions  of  the  treaty  and  restore  property  to 
British  loyalists.  It  was  necessary  for  the  central  gov- 
ernment to  appeal  to  the  individual  states  to  make 
restitution  wherever  the  commission  awarded  it.  These 
appeals  were  very  coldly  received,  and  the  Britishers 
got  the  awards  but  no  money;  the  individual  states 
would  not  settle  and  the  central  government  could  not. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  this  situation  was  the  cause  of 
a  vast  amount  of  ill  feeling.  The  particular  issue  of  the 
restitution  of  loyalist  property  was  taken  care  of  in  the 
Jay  Treaty  with  England  in  1795.^  But  twelve  years  of 
hot  bickering  had  done  its  work,  and  for  quite  a  long  time 
the  foreigner  was  stigmatized  and  covered  with  oppro- 
brium. The  sentiment  was  very  strongly  rooted  in  the  J 
country  that  only  real  native  "Americans,"  interpreted 
very  narrowly,  should  participate  in  the  government. 

'  W.  M.  Malloy,  Treaties. 


44  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

In  Congress  in  1798  distrust  and  opposition  against  the 
foreigners  in  general  centered  around  Albert  Gallatin, 
who  then  was  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.  He  was  an 
able  man,  but  his  policy  was  bitterly  attacked  by  the 
Antifederalist  party,  which  was  rapidly  growing  in 
strength.  In  such  a  situation  it  is  rather  hard  to  tell 
whether  the  ostensible  cause  of  trouble  is  the  real  one. 
He  was  condemned  because  he  was  a  foreigner,  but  quite 
likely  this  fact  was  overemphasized  and  exploited  to 
achieve  the  desired  end  of  discrediting  his  policy.  At 
this  time  there  was  a  decided  reaction  against  naturaliza- 
tion and  in  favor  of  recognizing  only  citizenship  by  birth. 
The  feeling  culminated  in  a  new  Naturalization  Act 
June  18,  1798,  which  made  the  residence  period  preced- 
ing naturalization  fourteen  years  and  required  all 
foreigners  to  be  registered.  However,  the  former  act 
was  restored  two  years  later  and  the  period  set  at  five 
years  again. ^ 

Naturalization  of  foreigners  has  always  been  a 
function  within  the  exclusive  control  of  the  federal 
government.  The  first  act  of  Congress  on  the  matter 
was  passed  on  March  26,  1790,  and  permitted  the 
naturalization  of  ''any  alien  being  a  free  white  person."^ 
It  has  remained  the  same  ever  since  except  that  after  the 
Civil  War,  on  July  14,  1870,  it  was  enlarged  to  include 
Africans  and  descendants  of  Africans.^  As  the  Naturali- 
zation Law  now  stands,  free  white  persons  and  negroes 
are  the  only  races  that  may  be  naturalized;  the  full 
period  of  residence  must  be  five  years,  and  at  least  two 

^  J.  Schouler,  History  of  the  United  States,  I,  405. 
=»  I  Stat,  at  Large  103,  chap.  iii. 
3 16  Stat,  at  Large  256,  chap.  cclv. 


Property  Tests  and  the  Foreigner  Problem        45 

years  previous  to  taking  out  final  papers  the  alien  must 
declare  that  it  is  bona  fide  his  intention  to  become  a 
citizen  of  the  United  States/ 

In  the  early  days,  when  a  state  constitution  conferred 
the  franchise  upon  "inhabitants"  or  "residents,"  these 
terms  had  been  interpreted  as  meaning  citizens.''  These 
opinions  were  later  discredited  by  decisions  in  the  middle 
western  states,  but  by  that  time  there  was  not  much 
excuse  for  the  issue  coming  up. 

Difiiculties  with  France,  growing  out  of  the  Jay 
Treaty,  and  the  French  and  English  war  did  not  help 
to  make  the  foreigner  any  more  popular  in  this  country 
during  the  first  decade  of  the  nineteenth  century. 
England  was  riding  roughshod  over  United  States  rights, 
impressing  United  States  seamen,  and  denying  the 
right  of  Englishmen  to  expatriate  themselves  and  become 
United  States  citizens,  and  France  was  treating  the 
United  States  with  insulting  contempt.  The  Jay 
Treaty  did  not  solve  such  troubles  as  these,  and  the 
foreigners  were  roundly  stigmatized  in  this  country  and 
their  presence  at  the  polls  was  not  welcome.  Complaints 
were  voiced  of  their  activities  at  elections,  and  while  no 
serious  attempt  was  made  to  exclude  naturalized  citi- 
zens the  attitude  toward  them  was  distinctly  hostile.^ 
Indeed  the  participation  of  foreigners  in  elections  had 
been  anticipated  long  before  in  the  controversy  over 

^  U.  S.  Comp.  Stat.,  1901,  p.  1329,  sec.  2165. 

"Samuel  McClintock,  Aliens  under  Federal  Laws  of  the  United 
States,  p.  24. 

3  Niks  Register,  April  10,  1834.  Correspondent  complains  of  being 
surrounded  at  the  polls  by  shoals  of  Englishmen  and  Scotchmen,  dis- 
seminating campaign  tickets  and  exercising  great  influence  on  the 
election. 


46  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

the  adoption  of  the  federal  Constitution/  The  War 
of  181 2  brought  the  spirit  of  antagonism  to  foreign 
participation  in  elections  to  the  boiling-point.  Many 
boys  and  indigent  men  who  fought  the  battles  of 
the  country  were  excluded  from  the  franchise,  while 
natives  of  the  enemy  land  and  Frenchmen  cast  their 
votes  as  usual.^  No  wonder  their  indignation  rose,  and 
as  no  sensible  means  of  excluding  naturalized  citizens 
could  suggest  itself,  attention  was  centered  upon  break- 
ing down  the  restrictions  against  propertyless,  non- 
taxpaying  soldiers  who  had  fought  for  the  country's 
freedom.  This  situation  has  been  reviewed  to  show  how 
the  foreign  element  contributed  its  share  to  the  expansion 
of  the  suffrage. 

^  Ford,  Essays  on  Constitutions,  p.  79.     Correspondent  dwells  upon 
the  deplorable  possibility  of  foreigners  having  a  hand  in  the  government. 
3  R.  Hildreth,  History  of  the  United  States,  VI,  317. 


CHAPTER  III 

PROPERTY  TESTS  AT  BAY  AND  THE  ADVENT  OF 
THE  FREE  NEGRO 

Between  1815  and  1820  three  new  states  on  the 
western  frontier  joined  the  Union.  They  were  Indiana, 
Illinois,  and  Missouri.  The  population  of  these  states 
was  made  up  largely  of  sturdy  pioneers,  men  who  were  so 
busy  fighting  with  nature  for  a  living  and  pushing 
outward  the  boundaries  of  civilization  that  they  found 
little  time  or  inclination  to  speculate  on  political  prob- 
lems and  suffrage  philosophy.  For  the  most  part  the 
population  in  these  states  was  quite  homogeneous.  This 
region  was  not  blessed  with  an  element  of  well-born, 
aristocratic,  and  wealthy  individuals  ready  to  carry  the 
burdens  of  the  state,  such  as  existed  in  New  England  and 
Virginia.  Also  there  was  no  ''riffraff"  that  had  to  be 
prevented  from  bringing  ruin  upon  the  nation.  And 
furthermore  there  was  no  religious  prejudice.  In  fact, 
these  western  states  presented  a  situation  that  had  never 
existed  before  since  the  country  was  first  settled.  Even 
the  early  expeditions  of  the  seventeenth  century — 
groups  of  courageous  men  who  established  the  coast 
settlements — had  among  them  aristocratic  persons  and 
on  the  other  hand  a  distinctly  servile  group.  Right 
down  to  the  nineteenth  century  the  Atlantic  coast  never 
was  without  its  smattering  of  well-born  aristocrats  who 
demanded  and  secured  special  privilege  whether  they 
exercised  it  with  decent  regard  for  the  proletariat  or  not. 

47 


48  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

In  present-day  glorification  of  the  heroic  work  of  the 
Pilgrim  Fathers  and  their  contemporaries  one  is  quite 
likely  to  lose  all  sight  of  antidemocratic  institutions  and 
practices. 

The  Jeffersonian  movement  in  the  beginning  of  the 
nineteenth  century  marks  the  first  step  toward  personal 
freedom  and  independence  of  government.  Jeffersonian 
Democrats  did  not  want  the  government  to  do  things. 
The  less  the  government  had  to  do  the  better  they  were 
satisfied;  the  smaller  and  more  independent  the  units  of 
local  government  were  the  better.  How  this  spirit  had 
to  combat  the  last  stand  of  conservatism  and  aristocracy 
is  seen  in  the  rout  of  the  Federal  party.  The  defeat  of 
that  party  not  only  brought  to  an  end  the  power  of  that 
group  of  aristocrats,  but  actually  meant  the  end  of  the 
group  as  a  definable  element  in  society.  Disintegration 
took  place  in  the  eastern  states,  while  across  the  Appa- 
lachians the  aristocrats  never  traveled.  Hence  in  these 
frontier  states  of  the  Mississippi  Valley  there  was  this 
entirely  unique  situation.  All  men  were  on  a  plane 
socially,  and  government  was  merely  a  convenience  to 
them,  not  a  semi-sacred  institution.  That  all  men 
should  participate  in  what  government  there  was,  was  a 
foregone  conclusion.  There  was  no  aristocratic  element 
to  deal  with,  no  poor-servant  and  artisan  class,  there 
were  no  scholars,  no  philosophers,  no  theologians,  just 
hardy  pioneers  setting  up  a  frame  of  government  because 
the  population  was  getting  big  enough  to  need  it.  There 
was  no  suffrage  problem  for  them.  In  future  years  the 
foreigner  and  the  free  negro  came  to  be  problems,  but 
at  this  time  there  was  no  suffrage  problem.  Hence 
Indiana  in  her  constitution  of  181 6  admitted  white 


Property  Tests  and  the  Free  Negro  49 

male  citizens  who  had  lived  in  the  state  one  year. 
Illinois  did  the  same  in  18 18,  making  the  residence  only 
six  months,  however.  Both  states  disfranchised  for 
infamous  crimes.  Missouri  ijn.  1820  provided  for  suffrage 
in  just  the  same  way  but  insisted  upon  three  months' 
residence  in  the  county.  Nothing  .was  said  in  any  of 
these  constitutions  about  unnaturalized  foreigners.  The 
scramble  for  immigrants  had  not  yet  come. 

It  should  be  mentioned  that  in  the  Missouri  constitu- 
tional conve|xti<ffl.Pi  1820  an  attempt  was  made  to  insert 
a  taxpaying  qualification  for  suffrage.^  It  seems  that 
no  one  had  the  hardihood  seriously  to  urge  anything 
more  conservative,  such  as  property  owning,  and  the 
fate  which  met  the  modest  little  taxpaying  suggestion  is 
significant  evidence  of  the  impatience  these  westerners 
had  for  such  movements.  It  was  defeated  two  to  one, 
with  hardly  a  protesting  voice  in  its  defense.  There  was 
also  an  effort  made  to  reduce  the  customary  age  limit 
to  eighteen  years  instead  of  leaving  it  at  twenty-one. 
But  the  suggestion  for  admitting  boys  to  the  polls  at 
the  age  of  eighteen  no  doubt  illustrates  the  social  condi- 
tions in  this  part  of  the  country.  Everybody  had  to  do 
a  man's  work,  and  boys  of  eighteen  years  were  house- 
holders and  independent,  self-reliant  men  of  ajffairs. 
No  wonder  that  property  qualifications  and  tax  require- 
ments were  held  in  great  contempt  out  there.  In  the 
East  these  old  requirements  were  breaking;  in  the  West 
they  never  took  root. 

Perhaps  this  statement  should  be  qualified  when  the 
Mississippi  constitution  of  181 7  is  brought  to  light. 
And  yet  Mississippi  is  hardly  typical  of  the  western 

^  Mo.  Conv.,  1820,  Journal,  p.  34. 


50  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

frontier.  The  soil  of  Mississippi  had  been  occupied  by 
adventurers  coming  in  upon  the  southern  coast  long 
before  the  states  to  the  north  were  explored.  Old 
World  ideas  had  established  roots  in  southern  Mississippi 
and  Louisiana,  and  it  is  not  to  be  wondered  at  that 
political  sentiment  would  be  slightly  different  and  a 
bit  more  conservative  than  it  was  to  the  North.  Missis- 
sippi provided  the  same  as  the  other  states  of  this  period 
but  injected  a  requirement  demanding  payment  of  a 
state  or  county  tax  with  an  alternative  of  doing  military 
service  in  the  state  militia.  As  enrolment  in  the  militia 
was  compulsory  and  the  qualification  simply  men- 
tioned ''a"  tax  without  fixing  the  amount,  the  restriction 
did  not  amount  to  much  in  practice. 

Two  other  states  coming  in  during  this  period  deserve 
some  attention.  They  are  Maine  and  Alabama,  both 
of  which  joined  in  1819.  As  might  have  been  expected, 
the  matter  of  a  property  test  was  seriously  considered  in 
Maine.  The  same  forces  which  made  for  liberalism  in 
the  West  did  not  operate  so  unobstructedly  in  New 
England,  although  they  were  present.  Here  con- 
servatism was  well  intrenched,  but  even  so  the  property 
test  could  not  carry  the  day.  The  delegates  to  the 
convention  could  not  tolerate  a  high  property  test,  and 
they  believed  that  a  low  one  did  more  harm  than  good. 
However,  the  element  in  favor  of  property  qualifications 
was  big  enough  in  the  state  so  that  the  convention  felt 
that  it  was  necessary  to  make  some  sort  of  explanation 
of  its  decision.  A  statement  dealing  with  the  suffrage 
question  was  sent  out,  which  was  called  an  "Address 
to  the  People  from  the  Convention,"  and  summed  up  the 
situation  in  these  words:    "/Pecuniary  qualifications  of 


Property  Tests  and  the  Free  Negro  51 

electors  have  been  productive  of  little  benefit;  some- 
times of  injustice.  They  are  too  often  relaxed  or  strained 
to  suit  the  purposes  of  the  day.  The  convention  has 
therefore  extended  the  right  of  suffrage,  so  that  no  person 
is  disqualified  for  want  of  property  unless  he  be  a 
pauper."^  This  statement  seems  to  convey  the  idea 
that  the  convention  was  not  opposed  to  a  property  test 
on  general  principles  but  thought  it  could  not  be  worked 
successfully.  The  truth  of  the  matter  probably  is  that 
few  men  in  the  convention  cared  to  champion  a  losing 
cause  and  aimed  to  conciliate  all  sides  with  an  evasive 
statement. 

As  the  quotation  intimates,  paupers  were  excluded 
from  the  polls.  Maine  also  began  to  see  the  desirability 
of  excluding  certain  other  persons.  The  position  of 
criminals  occupied  a  considerable  amount  of  attention  in 
the  debates.  Strong  arguments  were  made  in  favor  of 
disfranchising  men  convicted  of  an  infamous  crime.^ 
But  it  was  pointed  out  in  answer  to  this  that  justice-of- 
the-peace  convictions  were  not  reliable,  that  evidence  of 
conviction  was  not  easy  to  have  at  hand  on  election  day, 
and,  furthermore,  that  no  man  should  be  burdened  with 
such  a  penalty  through  life,  casting  a  stigma  upon  him 
and  causing  him  to  maintain  a  resentful  attitude  toward 
the  government  for  the  rest  of  his  days.  The  move  to  j 
have  criminals  excluded  did  not  prevail,  and  this  is  ' 
rather  unusual  in  view  of  the  fact  that  most  states  did 
exclude  criminals  when  they  thought  of  it.  For  the^ 
most  part  men  have  been  very  ready  to  agree  that  if 
anyone  deserves  exclusion  from  the  suffrage  it  is  the 
person  guilty  of  crime. 

'  Maine  Conv.,  1819,  Debates,  p.  106.  '  Ihid.,  p.  123. 


52  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

This  convention,  however,  did  exclude  persons  under 
guardianship,  as  well  as  paupers.  Soldiers,  sailors,  and 
marines  in  the  employ  of  the  government  could  not 
acquire  a  residence  under  this  constitution  and  neither 
could  students  in  a  seminary  of  learning.  These  steps 
were  not  subjected  to  debate.  The  points  are  significant 
only  because  they  indicate  the  beginning  of  attempts  to 
guard  the  polls  from  unsafe  voters  when  the  property  bars 
were  let  down.  Later  on  the  exclusion  in  specific  terms 
I  of  soldiers  and  sailors,  students,  paupers,  maniacs,  and 
I  criminals  came  to  be  the  regular  practice,  without  any 
^.jdebate  as  to  its  obvious  desirability.  The  matter  is  not 
of  great  importance,  but  a  thoroughly  good  and  com- 
prehensive suffrage  law  should  take  these  matters  into 
consideration,  and  it  is  worth  while  noting  how  quickly 
the  incoming  states  appreciated  the  problem  and  took 
steps  to  meet  it.  The  residence  requirement  was  fixed 
at  the  extremely  low  period  of  three  months  in  the  state. 
There  seems,  however,  to  have  been  no  controversy 
over  this. 

The  Maine  convention  promptly  suppressed  an 
attempt  to  exclude  free  negroes  along  with  Indians  not 
taxed.  Nobody  had  a  word  to  say  for  the  Indians,  but 
it  was  urged  that  Indians  had  never  been  considered  a 
part  of  the  body  politic,  implying  that  negroes  had  been 
so  considered  and  thus  should  not  suffer  disabilities.  Of 
course  the  negro  never  was  present  in  large  numbers  in 
Maine,  and  there,  as  elsewhere,  righteous  men  invoked 
high  principles  and  lived  up  to  them  with  punctilious 
consistency — when  doing  so  could  not  harm  the  com- 
munity in  the  slightest  degree.  They  took  pride  in 
being  magnanimous  when  there  was  no  harm  in  it.    So 


Property  Tests  and  the  Free  Negro  53 

the  convention  with  righteous  indignation  promptly 
suppressed  a  move  to  exclude  the  negro/ 

In  Alabama  during  the  same  year  negro  suffrage 
was  quite  as  undebatable,  but  what  a  different  decision 
was  reached!  Alabama  remembered  about  soldiers  and 
sailors  but  forgot  the  students.  Many  crimes — perjury, 
forgery,  bribery,  etc. — were  enumerated  as  being  cause 
for  exclusion,  but  insane  people  and  paupers  received  no 
attention.  No  one  state  as  yet  completely  covered  the 
suffrage  problem. 

In  the  same  year,  18 19,  Connecticut  provided  herself 
with  a  new  constitution,  and  in  it  are  to  be  found  the 
relics  of  conservatism.  The  Journal  of  the  convention 
which  drew  up  this  constitution  gives  no  evidence  of 
any  keen  debate  or  vigorous  effort  to  get  rid  of  the  traces 
of  property  qualifications.  Several  alternatives  are 
found  in  this  constitution.  A  voter  must  possess  a  free- 
hold estate  of  seven  dollars  yearly  value,  or  else  he  must 
have  performed  one  year  of  military  duty,  or  have  paid 
a  state  tax  within  a  year.  Superimposed  upon  all  this 
was  the  requirement  that  voters  must  sustain  a  good 
moral  character.  The  old  New  Englanders  never  could 
get  the  distinction  between  a  pious  wish  and  an  enforce- 
able law,  and  they  would  write  a  pious  wish  into  their 
constitution  with  the  same  solemnity  with  which  they 
drew  up  practical  laws.  It  is  hard  to  understand  what 
the  lawmakers  ever  intended  to  do  with  such  a  provision, 
but  there  it  stands,  to  all  intents  and  purposes  a  defi- 
nite restriction  upon  the  suffrage  in  Connecticut.    No 

^  Maine  Conv.,  1819,  Debates,  p.  125.  The  scribe  records  the  inci- 
dent in  these  brief  terms:  "Mr.  Vance  and  Dr.  Rose  spoke  in  favor  of 
the  motion,  but  it  did  not  obtain." 


54  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

evidence  is  at  hand  to  show  that  the  legislature  ever 
defined  a  moral  or  an  immoral  character,  and  it  is  doubt- 
ful if  the  clause  ever  was  the  subject  of  any  litigation. 
Connecticut  covered  the  case  of  criminals  in  this  consti- 
tution very  fully,  enumerating  various  crimes,  and  it  is 
to  be  wondered  whether  the  convention  ever  expected 
others  than  the  enumerated  criminals  to  be  excluded 
under  the  moral-character  clause. 

The  following  decade,,  1820-3)0,  witnessed  three  of  the 
most  noteworthy  constltutioMl  conventions  in  the 
history  of  the  United  States.'  Jeffersonian  democracy 
had  done  its  work.  Delegates  came  to  the  conventions 
fired  with  determination  to  vindicate  the  teachings  of 
democracy  or,  on  the  other  hand,  to  make  one  last  heroic 
stand  for  conservatism  and  property  rights.  In  New 
York  there  was  staged  a  battle  royal  centering  largely 
around  the  suffrage  question.  The  property  interests 
were  represented  by  some  of  the  best  political  talent  in 
the  country,  Chancellor  Kent  being  one  of  the  most 
conspicuous  delegates.  They  were  determined  to  save 
as  much  of  special  privilege  for  themselves  as  they 
possibly  could,  and  only  acquiesced  in  compromise  when 
they  saw  that  their  cause  was  hopeless.  For  many 
years  it  had  been  obvious  that  property  was  bound  to 
lose  its  prestige  everywhere  in  the  Union.  The  new 
incoming  states  in  the  Mississippi  Valley  were  not  even 
giving  property  a  taste  of  special  privilege.  The  new 
states  farther  east  were  tempering  property  qualifications 
with  alternatives  that  paralyzed,  and  when  property 
tests  were  included  they  were  so  very  small  and  insig- 
nificant as  to  be  of  no  importance.    The  propertied 

'New  York,  1821;  Massachusetts,  182 1;  Virginia,  1830. 


Property  Tests  and  the  Free  Negro  55 

class  had  seen  its  best  days  and  knew  it.  Only  in  such 
states  as  New  York,  where  there  were  large  and  ancient 
property  interests  bulwarke^,,;SKiJi.iaa<l3Ly^ye^^^ 
privilege,  could  a  vigorous  fight  be  put  up,  for  it  must  be 
rememFeFed^tKallEEe  eteclorate  is  something  like  a  closed 
corporation,  only  enlarging  itself  by  co-opting  whom  it 
pleases.  All  extension  of  the  suffrage  must  come  through 
those  who  have  it.  In  New  York  there  were  very  power- 
ful property  interests  capable  of  exerting  vast  influence. 

A  certain  amount  of  propaganda  against  property 
quaHfications  had  been  spread  over  the  state  previous 
to  the  convention,  but  the  precepts  of  the  new  democ- 
racy hardly  needed  propagation.  What  was  needed  was 
talent  cajmble  ^f ,  bearmg  down  the  conservative  vested 
interests  and  courage  to  take  advantage  of  numerical 
majority  and^raw  a  constitution  that  the  people  really 
wanted.  In  New  York  this  was  not  quite  done,  and 
the  people  remedied  the  fault  by  means  of  a  referendum 
five  years  later.  The  popular  opinion  now  was  that  a 
property  qualification  always  was  bad.  The  proposition 
was  advanced  that  if  a  property  test  were  small  it 
tempted  to  fraud,  and  if  it  were  large  it  created  an 
aristocracy.  The  idea  also  gained  popularity  that  the 
property  holder,  by  virtue  of  his  wealth,  was  better  able 
to  protect  himself  than  the  poor  man,  who  therefore 
needed  government  protection  most.^  And  yet  there 
seems  to  have  been  prevailing  a  sort  of  undeliberative 
feeling  for  manhood  suffrage  that  felt  no  need  for  argu- 
ment. 

The  Committee  on  Elective  Franchise  in  the  New 
York  convention  of  182 1  proposed  to  abolish  all  property 

'  Niks  Register,  XIX,  115. 


56  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

distinctions  and  make  the  right  to  vote  uniform/  This 
committee  advanced  the  proposition  that  property 
distinctions  were  of  British  origin,  where  the  various 
classes  of  society  needed  special  representation.  In  the 
United  States  there  was  only  one  homogeneous  group — 
the  people — and  all  interests  were  identical.  The  only 
qualification  should  be  virtue  and  morality.  But 
although  the  property  interests  had  been  unable  to  get 
a  favorable  committee  report  they  marshaled  their 
forces  and  proceeded  to  assail  the  liberal  position  of  the 
franchise  committee. 

It  was  very  soon  evident  that  a  general-property  test 
could  never  be  put  through.  All  proposals,  however 
mild,  were  decisively  repudiated.  But  the  property 
interests  were  not  lacking  in  resourcefulness.  They 
immediately  proposed  to  retain  a  property  qualification 
for  voters  for  senators,  and  on  this  proposition  they  based 
all  their  hopes.  It  was  insisted  that  real  property 
afforded  the  most  substantial  security  to  the  govern- 
ment. It  was  considered  to  be  the  main  source  of 
wealth  from  which  the  state  could  draw  its  revenue. 
Its  immovable  and  imperishable  qualities  made  it  a 
secure  and  tangible  bulwark  to  which  the  state  might  tie. 
Possession  of  real  property  was  considered  the  best 
possible  evidence  of  a  firm  interest  in  the  well-being  of 
the  state,  would  make  the  owner  cautious  about  public 
expenditures,  insure  economy,  etc.  The  same  arguments 
that  had  served  the  purpose  for  two  centuries  were 
brought  forth.  And  the  suggested  compromise  of  hav- 
ing a  property  qualification  for  electors  of  senators  pro- 
vided a  fine  opportunity  to  press  these  arguments  with 
new  force. 

»  N.Y.  Conv.,  182 1,  Debates,  p.  178. 


Property  Tests  and  the  Free  Negro  57 

The  suggested  compromise  also  offered  opportunity 
for  a  new  theory  of  representation  to  be  developed.  It 
was  said  that  men  have  equal  rights,  to  be  sure,  but  if 
every  man  has  life  and  liberty  to  be  protected  the 
property  owner  has  something  more.  Hence  let  the 
unpropertied  man  vote  for  members  of  the  lower  house, 
but  let  the  senate  serve  as  a  protection  for  property  and 
allow  only  property  owners  to  vote  for  senators.  When 
the  government  protected  all  a  man  possessed,  what 
more  could  he  ask?  But  in  all  justice  the  man  with 
property  should  have  that  protected  as  well  as  his  life  and 
liberty.  This  argument  supported  in  a  new  way  the 
well-known  doctrine  of  checks  and  balances.  It  was 
urged  that  it  was  not  expedient  to  derive  both  houses 
from  identical  constituencies,  and  what  could  be  more 
logical  than  to  give  to  property  owners  special  repre- 
sentation ?  These  arguments  made  a  very  strong  appeal. 
Even  the  ablest  of  the  progressives  seemed  not  to  recog- 
nize the  illogical  position  of  property  .owners  in  claiming 
a  larger  share  in  supporting  the  government.  The  truth 
seemed  never  to  be  brought  out  that  the  real  producer 
of  wealth  contributed  to  the  support  of  the  state  every 
day  he  worked,  and  whether  or  not  he  owned  property 
was  quite  inconsequentialT  "Of  course  property  owners 
would  not  accept  such  a  doctrine,  but  it  is  strange  that 
the  unpropertfed  men  did  not  see  it  either.  They 
found  these  arguments  of  the  conservatives  exceedingly 
hard  to  combat  and  many  times  just  sullenly  refused  to 
agree  to  their  arguments  without  attempting  to  dispose 
of  them.^ 

^  Yet  one  speaker  did  seem  to  have  this  idea  in  mind  when  he 
declared,  "It  is  said  that  wealth  builds  our  churches,  establishes  our 
schools,  endows  our  colleges,  and  erects  our  hospitals.  But  have  these 
institutions  been  raised  without  the  hands  of  labor?" — Ihid.,  p.  225. 


58  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

But  the  idea  of  looking  upon  legislators  as  represent- 
ing certain  defined  interests,  life,  liberty,  property,  etc., 
involved  a  division  of  labor,  as  it  were,  that  was  quickly 
shown  to  be  absurd.  If  the  argument  was  sound,  men 
should  be  represented  according  to  the  amount  of 
property  they  owned,  the  wealthy  man  enjoying  the 
largest  representation,  the  man  with  only  life  and  Hberty 
enjoying  the  least.  Also,  it  was  pointed  out,  such  a 
scheme  would  at  once  create  clearly  defined  political 
groups  based  on  property  lines,  which  circumstance 
would  have  a  distinctly  unwholesome  effect  on  the  body 
politic.  Cleavages  on  pohtical  questions  would  then 
cut  horizontally,  as  it  were,  instead  of  vertically;  that 
is,  men  of  all  classes  would  not  take  sides  on  the  merits 
of  the  issue  at  hand,  but  men  of  particular  classes  would 
line  up  according  to  their  property  holdings. 

Such  a  situation  would  cause  to  exist  in  every  com- 
munity two  distinct  more  or  less  hostile  factions  based 
solely  on  property.  This  would  involve  a  perpetuation 
of  an  illusory  division  of  interests  that  would  be  quite 
unfortunate. 

Another  aspect  of  the  case  was  this:  The  prejudice 
against  foreigners  developed  in  the  twenty  years  follow- 
ing the  Revolution  had  by  no  means  died  out,  and  far- 
seeing  men  could  easily  look  forward  to  the  new  foreigner 
problem  destined  to  trouble  the  states  in  later  years. 
The  new  influx  was  to  be  from  Ireland  and  Germany  as 
well;  the  Englishmen  and  the  few  Frenchmen  were 
rapidly  disappearing,  but  the  other  type  was  coming. 
These  conventions  in  the  early  twenties  really  came 
between  these  two  periods;  but  statesmen  saw  the 
coming  throng  and  urged  that  property  tests  would 


Property  Tests  and  the  Free  Negro  59 

protect  the  state  against  the  tumultuous,  disorderly   "' 
Irishmen  in  the  cities  and  the  Germans  in  the  country.  ^  i  "^ 
It  was  an  argument  that  made  a  strong  appeal,  for  menjf" 
yet  felt  that  America  was  for  Americans  and  heartily 
resented  the  participation  even  of  naturalized  citizens  in 
the  affairs  of  government.    It  was  not  until  the  western 
states  felt  the  need  of  foreigners  to  develop  their  untilled 
lands  that  this  prejudice  was  broken  down,  and  even  so  it 
died  hard  and  even  resulted  in  the  formation  of  very  con- 
siderable political  parties.    It  was  just  about  this  time, 
J821,  that  the  lines  upon  which  this  new  problem  was  to 
be  fought  out  began  to  appear.    There  is  no  doubt  that 
this  argument  had  as  much  to  do  as  any  other  single 
point  with  maintaining  the  taxpaying  qualification.        .^ 

There  was  every  evidence  in  the  debates  of  this  con- 
vention that  the  delegates  were  not  sure  of  their  ground, 
that  they  were  not  at  all  positive  as  to  what  the  people 
really  wanted.  This  comment  surely  is  justified  by  the 
fact  that  less  than  ^yq  years  after  the  convention  the 
people  repudiated  their  suffrage  clause.  In  every  con- 
vention advocates  insist  that  they  are  backed  up  by  a 
majority  of  the  people,  of  course,  but  the  tendency  to 
vacillate,  propose  compromises,  and  in  general  ex:hibit 
great  uncertainty  shows  that  here  there  was  a  real  doubt. 
The  mere  fact  that  the  convention  was  willing  to  tolerate 
the  endless  debates  illustrates  the  uncertainty,  and  even 
so  the  final  vote  on  the  property  test  for  senatorial 
electors  was  quite  decisive.  After  an  exceedingly  long  | 
wrangle,  dragged  out  by  endless  speeches  merely  reiter-  j 
ating  the  same  old  arguments,  the  property  interests  \ 
succumbed  one  himdred  to  nineteen.^    Property  had" 

^  N.Y.  Conv.,  182 1,  Debates,  p.  270. 


6o  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

made  its  last  stand  and  had  failed.  All  that  could  be 
secured  was  a  trifling  taxpaying  qualification  with  a 
paralyzing  alternative. 

The  tax  qualification  was  put  in  these  ternas :  Electors 
must  have  p^jd^a  stateorcounty  tax,  or  have  performed 
military  service,  or  have  worked  on  the  highway,  or 
haveTTvecTthree  years  m  the  state  instead  of  the  one  year 
prescribed  ordinarily.  These  alternatives,  of  course, 
have  every  earmark  of  makeshift  compromise.  These 
were  the  only  things  many  of  the  progressives  had  the 
courage  and  skill  to  insist  upon,  and  of  course  they  drew 
the  sting  out  of  the  taxpaying  test.  It  can  be  under- 
stood how  these  measures  were  nervously  and  apologeti- 
cally inserted  to  secure  what  was  really  wanted,  whereas 
the  property  and  tax  tests  could  have  been  boldly 
repudiated  altogether. 

Chancellor  Kent  feared  excess  of  democracy.  He 
would  not  bow  before  the  idol  of  universal  suffrage.^ 
It  would  be  treason  to  the  agricultural  element,  the 
backbone  of  the  state;  this  must  have  safeguards  thrown 
around  it  as  protection  from  the  city  mob  of  irre- 
sponsibles.  He  painted  a  dreadful  picture:  ^'The 
Radicals  of  England,  with  the  force  of  that  mighty  engine 
[universal  suffrage],  would  at  once  sweep  away  the  prop- 
erty, the  laws,  and  the  liberties  of  that  island  like  a 
deluge."  He  heaped  scathing  contempt  upon  the  pro- 
posed alternatives.  Serving  a  day  upon  the  road  or  an 
idle  hour  in  the  militia,  said  he,  was  a  mere  nominal  test 
of  merit.  The  convention  had  not  the  courage  to  defeat 
him  utterly,  and  hence  the  compromises. 

'  N.Y.  Conv.,  182 1,  Debates,  p.  219. 


Property  Tests  and  the  Free  Negro  6i 

But  the  convention  was  not  so  disdainful  about  the 
^"idle  hour''  in  the  militia.  It  seemed  fundamentally 
imjust  that  the  men  who  fought  the  nation's  battles 
might  not  vote.  Many  a  veteran  of  the  War  of  i8 1 2  found 
the  polls  closed  to  him,  and  this  offended  the  innate  sense 
of  justice  in  men.  An  attempt  was  made  to  get  in  a 
clause  that  would  enfranchise  veterans  but  not  the 
militiamen,  a  great  many  of  whom,  it  was  said,  never  did 
anything  but  parade.  One  of  the  generals  said  that  he 
was  not  in  favor  of  permitting  anyone  to  vote  who  was 
not  to  be  found  when  the  taxgatherer  or  the  enemy 
appeared,  and  yet  he  wanted  only  veterans  to  be  relieved 
of  taxpaying  tests,  not  the  militiamen.  Indeed  the 
plight  of  veterans  was  greatly  exploited  in  oratorical  and 
emotional  manner.  The  president  of  the  convention 
contributed  to  this  and  elicited  a  sarcastic  retort  from 
one  member : 

Vivid  and  impressive  as  was  the  picture  drawn  by  our  president 
of  the  gallant  officer  who  died  of  a  broken  heart  because,  as  it 
would  seem,  he  was  not  an  elector,  even  a  limited  fancy  might 
add  to  the  apparent  injustice  of  our  country.  Suppose  the  gallant 
hero  had  been  a  youth  of  twenty  years  of  age — is  it  proposed  to 
embrace  his  case  and  make  brave  infants  voters  ?^ 

And  yet  not  a  few  men  were  convinced  that  if  a  brave 
infant  was  able  to  carry  a  gun  for  his  country  he  was  able 
to  carry  a  ballot  to  the  voting  booth,  and  there  is  no 
little  doubt  that  if  the  gentleman  had  continued  with 
the  sarcasm  *' brave  infants"  might  have  been  provided 
for  as  well  as  their  elders.  A  deep-seated  affection 
existed  then  as  now  for  the  boys  who  went  to  war,  and 
only  calm  judgment,  not  lack  of  appreciation  of  their 

^  Ihid.,  p.  252. 


62  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

service,  resulted  in  keeping  the  age  limit  at  twenty-one. 
Militiamen  as  well  as  veterans  were  exempted  from  the 
tax  test  by  a  vote  of  sixty-eight  to  forty-eight/ 

As  to  workers  on  the  highway,  the  franchise  was 
extended  to  them  because  such  work  was  considered 
equivalent  to  a  tax.  It  is  unnecessary  to  develop  the 
argument. 

But  the  property  test  was  not  the  only  problem  that 
occupied  the  attention  of  the  New  York  convention  in 
fixing  the  suffrage  qualifications.  The  free  negro  was 
coming  to  be  a  problem  at  this  time.  And  in  fact  it 
was  in  this  very  convention  that  one  of  the  first  great 
battles  for  negro  suffrage  was  staged.  From  this  time 
on  negro  suffrage  was  an  issue  everywhere  outside  the 
strictly  southern  states.  In  the  border  states,  of  course, 
the  battle  waged  the  fiercest.  Some  negroes  were  being 
set  free,  others  were  escaping  from  their  owners,  and 
naturally  most  of  them  went  no  farther  north  than 
across  the  border  of  a  free  state.  The  number  of  such 
men  was  rapidly  growing,  and  before  long  the  problem 
of  negro  suffrage  eclipsed  the  problem  of  the  foreigner. 
Foreigners  were  quickly  absorbed  and  ceased  to  advertise 
the  fact  of  their  difference  from  native  Americans,  but 
the  negro  never  could  hide  his  identity,  and  black  faces 
at  the  polls  invariably  roused  a  storm  of  indignation 
among  a  certain  class  of  people.  Hence  there  was  no 
hope  for  settlement  until  the  Civil  War  was  over. 

New  York  was  not  a  state  that  suffered  greatly  from 
the  presence  of  the  negro,  and  yet  there  were  enough  of 
them  there  to  stir  up  very  keen  interest  in  the  matter, 
and  the  convention  of  ,1821  was  very  ready  to  discuss 

'  N.Y,  Conv.,  1821,  Debates,  p.  283. 


Property  Tests  and  the  Free  Negro  63 

any  suffrage  issue  to  the  bitter  end.  At  once  the  propo- 
sition was  set  forth  that  color  had  nothing  to  do  with 
ability  to  vote.  Color  was  declared  to  be  an  utterly 
foolish  standard,  having  no  rational  basis.  There  was 
no  excuse  for  considering  the  matter  of  color  at  all. 
All  free  men  should  be  treated  exactly  alike.  It  was 
said  that  to  deny  the  negro  the  right  to  vote  was  to 
"pimish  the  children  for  the  crime  inflicted  upon  their 
parents."  The  negroes  constituted  a  one-fortieth  part 
of  the  population,  and  the  present  was  an  excellent  time 
to  begin  training  them  for  intelligent  citizenship. 

It  seems  that  the  state  law  of  New  York  prevented 
the  negroes  from  serving  in  the  militia,  although  there 
is  little  doubt  that  they  would  have  been  welcome 
enough  in  time  of  war.  The  argument  that  since  they 
were  not  in  the  militia  and  hence  were  not  under  arms 
and  ready  to  defend  the  state  was  answered  by  saying 
that  there  was  no  good  reason  why  they  should  not  be 
in  the  militia.^  This  exclusion  from  the  militia  led  to 
another  consideration.  Was  it  not  unwise  to  set  up 
and  perpetuate  distinctions  that  might  cause  serious 
rupture  in  the  future  ?  Such  a  policy  of  exclusion  from 
participation  in  government  activity  was  calculated  to 

^  In  connection  with  this  situation  it  is  interesting  to  recall  to  mind 
an  act  of  Congress  on  May  8,  1792,  which  kept  the  negro  out  of  the 
militia.  It  was  by  no  means  universally  approved.  The  negroes  had 
done  considerable  service  in  the  Revolution,  and  many  people  held  a 
charitable  regard  for  them  because  of  this.  Von  Hoist  {Constitutional 
and  Political  History  of  the  United  States,  I,  303)  says  with  regard  to 
this  measure:  "The  Republic  now  praised  them  for  this  [service  in 
the  Revolution],  while  Congress  declared  them  unworthy  to  serve  in 
the  militia.  This  did  the  slaveholders  a  service  that  involves  the 
greatest  consequences,  for  it  had  now  been  recognized  as  a  funda- 
mental fact  that  race  and  color  were  principles  which  should  necessarily 
be  taken  account  of  in  making  laws." 


64  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

inspire  jealousy,  resentment,  distrust,  and  hatred  that 
might  prove  quite  inimical  to  the  best  interests  of  the 
state  and  would  surely  be  inconsistent  with  sound  policy. 
It  would  alienate  one  portion  of  the  community  from  the 
other,  and  such  a  state  of  affairs  could  never  make  for 
good. 

But  the  argument  which  carried  the  most  weight 
seemed  to  be  that  as  the  negro  was  subject  to  all  acts  of 
the  legislature  he  should  have  a  voice  in  the  election  of 
representatives.  He  also  was^iaxed  if  he  owned  prop- 
erty (which  was  seldom),  and  in  such  cases  the  sacred 
principle  of  no  taxation  without  representation  was 
ruthlessly  violated.  It  is  interesting  that  arguments 
having  the  most  weight  very  frequently  proved  weak  and 
unworkable  when  carried  out  consistently.  This  has 
been  particularly  true  of  the  doctrine  of  natural  right,  the 
doctrine  that  men  had  a  natural  right  to  vote.  It  was 
used  so  much  that  a  few  paragraphs  devoted  to  it  here 
will  not  be  out  of  place. 

In  the  matter  of  suffrage  a  principle  of  exclusion  must 
be  followed.  No  visionary  even,  worshiping  an  abstrac- 
tion, would  go  so  far  as  to  support  universal  suffrage 
absolutely.  The  possibility  of  allowing  infants  and 
imbeciles  to  vote  is  not  debatable.  Thus  inevitably, 
even  when  a  person  exploits  the  natural,  inalienable, 
inherent  right-to-vote  doctrine,  he  necessarily  excludes 
someone;  but  he  sets  whatever  limitation  seems  to  him 
consistent  with  his  individual  interpretation  of  natural 
right.  Hence  every  expression  of  natural  right  is 
anomalous.  Every  individual  who  uses  the  phrase 
determines  upon  what  he  thinks  is  right  under  the 
circumstances  and  in  the  Hght  of  his  understanding  and 


Property  Tests  and  the  Free  Negro  65 

then  uses  the  words  natural,  inalienable,  and  inherent 
in  order  to  give  his  opinion  a  sonorous  sound.  Hence 
the  phrase  ^'natural  right  to  vote"  has  been  quite 
meaningless. when  subjected  to  close  analysis.  Practi- 
cally all  who  have  used  the  doctrine  have  tacitly  left  out 
young  men  under  twenty-one,  almost  all  have  left  out 
women,  a  large  number  have  left  out  negroes,  and 
usually  criminals  and  paupers  have  been  left  out  by 
common  consent.^  But  the  doctrine  of  natural  right 
has  had  tremendous  influence,  and  there  appears  the 
strange  phenomenon  of  suffrage  being  carried  forward 
on  a  tide  of  fallacies  and  specious  doctrine. 

There  would  surely  be  reaction  and  a  return  to  former 
conditions  were  it  not  for  the  fact  that  the  forward 
movement  has  really  had  a  sound  basis.  The  reason 
suffrage  has  broadened  is  because  it  was  best  for  all 
mankind  that  it  should^broaden,  not  because  any 
particular  group  had  an  inherent  right  to  the  franchise. 
Personal  rights  are  completely  swallowed  up  in  a 
doctrine  of  social  goocvof  expediency,  and  in  the  past 
have  been  sacrificed  to  it  almost  unconsciously.  Men 
have  been  unwilling  to  say  that  certain  groups  have  been 
left  out  or  admitted  because  it  has  seemed  best  from  the 
social  point  of  view.  They  have  much  preferred  to  dilate 
on  personal  rights.^ 

^  It  is  exceedingly  difficult  to  bring  many  people  to  a  full  appreciation 
of  the  anomaly.  Those  who  use  the  phrase  "natural  right"  insulate 
themselves  and  labor  under  mental  inhibitions  that  rational  argument 
can  never  penetrate;  they  are  moral  grafters  who  in  fatuous  conceit 
set  up  their  idea  of  what  is  just  and  proper  and  try  to  surround  it  with  a 
sacred  halo  and  make  it  absolute. 

*  This  point  is  tre^^-ted  brilliantly  by  Mr.  Albert  Shaw  in  Political 
Problems  of  American  Development,  p.  123.  He  says  in  speaking  of 
woman  suffrage :    "It  becomes  a  question  of  experimental  detail  whether 


66  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

Quite  a  number  of  men  in  this  convention  were 
evidently  opposed  to  negro  suffrage,  but  they  were  more 
or  less  apologetic  about  it  and  did  not  like  to  speak  out 
plainly.  They  made  long  explanations  of  their  votes 
and  based  them  usually  on  the  statement  that  the 
negroes  were  probably  inefficient  and  incompetent, 
unable  to  exercise  the  right  in  a  proper  way.  But  a  few 
strong-minded  individuals  spoke  loudly  about  matters 
which  many  secretly  believed  but  did  not  care  to  espouse 
because  of  the  difficulty  of  reconciling  popular  ideas  of 
democracy  with  exclusion  of  negroes.  The  colored  race 
was  said  to  be  far,  far  below  the  white  in  the  social 
structure.  It  would  disrupt  society  to  admit  these 
debased  men  to  the  suffrage.  When  they  could  be  met 
as  equals  in  social  intercourse,  then  would  be  the  time 
to  extend  the  suffrage  rights  to  them.  Obviously  such 
arguments  as  this  and  others  of  the  same  sort  reflecting 
upon  the  negro's  ability  and  mental  capacity  would  apply 
with  equal  force  to  any  group  of  men  suffering  similar 
limitations.  This  struggle  over  negro  suffrage  merely 
illustrates  again  the  recurring  situation  in  connection 
with  suffrage  extension — firm-rooted  determination  not 
based  on  logical  argument  that  would  bear  analysis. 
Invariably  the  partisans  on  either  side  would  argue  the 
question  of  right,  the  question  of  democracy,  taxation, 
representation,  consent  of  governed,  social  position,  and 
always  avoid  the  real  determining  factor  of  expediency. 
Those  who  sought  to  secure  suffrage  for  the  negro  knew 
that  they  could  not  support  their  cause  by  saying  that 


the  women  assist  in  the  carrying  on  of  the  mechanical  tasks  of  govern- 
ment, or  whether  they  leave  the  business  of  voting  and  office-holding 
to  men." 


Property  Tests  and  the  Free  Negro  67 

they  believed  it  would  be  for  the  good  of  the  state,  so 
they  invoked  democratic  philosophy,  sympathetic  inter-.^ 
rest,  and  natural  rights.  The  opponents  did  not  careM^'^^ 
to  be  so  brazen  as  to  declare  that  admitting  the  negro 
would  be  a  bad  thing  for  the  state  regardless  of  his 
rights,  the  dictates  of  democracy,  the  Declaration  of 
Independence,  and  what  not.  So  they  twisted  and 
squirmed  as  best  they  could  to  construe  democratic  .^ 
philosophy  against  those  who  invoked  it  and  to  show 
that  the  negro's  rights  were  not  invaded.  They  were 
driven  to  the  doctrine  of  expediency  but  would  not 
admit  it.  In  nearly  ev£ry  case  where  the  issue  rose  and 
the  negroes  were  excluded  it  was  because  of  a  sullen 
conviction  that  it  would  not  be  right  to  let  them  in. 
Men  were  easily  brought  to  a  point  of  violent  indignation, 
deaf  to  all  argument,  by  such  persons  as  Colonel  Young, 
who  recalled  the  unfortunate  mistake  in  New  Jersey  that 
permitted  women  to  vote  there  for  a  time.  He  became 
almost  apoplectic  over  the  possibiHty  of  a  negress  voting 
in  New  York.  The  point  simply  is  that  many  a  time, 
in  fact  in  the  majority  of  cases,  a  decision  was  reached 
through  ridiculous  channels  that  would  have  been 
arrived  at  just  the  same  were  the  question  dealt  with  in 
a  rational  manner. 

After  a  very  long  debate  a  compromise  was  effected.    *^ 
Full  negro  suffrage  had  lost  by  a  very  narrow  margin. 
Now  it  was  proposed  to  grant  the  ballot  to  those  negroes  ,  , 
who    owned    property.    This    proposition,    of    course,--^ 
struck  at  the  very  root  of  the  opposition  argument. 
Evidence  of  holding  property  was  considered  pretty  good 
indication  of  interest  in  the  community  and  capacity  to 
act  intelligently.    Lack  of  such  capacity  had  been  the 


6s  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

chief  argument  against  the  negroes.  Enough  of  the 
opposition  was  persuaded  that  this  was  so,  and  a  clause 
was  inserted  in  the  constitution  granting  the  ballot  to 
negroes  owning  $250 .  00  worth  of  property  on  which  they 
paid  taxes.  Of  course  such  a  compromise  was  quite 
irrational;  if  there  was  any  virtue  in  the  principle 
involved  it  should  have  been  applied  to  all  men.  But 
there  were  enough  men  in  the  convention  satisfied  with 
such  a  compromise,  and  hence  the  property  test  was 
prolonged  in  New  York  for  the  benefit  of  the  negro 
race. 

A  great  many  times  delegates  spoke  of  coming  uni- 
versal suffrage.  The  concept  seems  to  have  penetrated 
this  convention  as  it  had  no  other  previous  to  this  time. 
Many  contemplated  it  with  great  alarm;  others  looked 
upon  its  coming  with  great  complacency.  Some  dele- 
gates saw  the  way  the  wind  was  blowing — that  every 
group  which  had  the  slightest  claim  to  suffrage  could 
find  defenders  in  a  convention,  that  compromise  and 
logrolling  inevitably  would  let  down  the  bars  on  every 
side,  and  that  every  step  in  advance  made  the  next  step 
doubly  easy.  It  is  significant  that  the  suffrage  extension 
did  run  smoothly  until  it  struck  the  negro  problem; 
getting  over  the  race  barrier  was  a  much  more  difficult 
matter  than  letting  a  few  more  white  men  in  by  one 
means  or  another.  In  fact  there  are  three  very  impor- 
tant things  to  note  in  connection  with  the  debates  on 
suffrage  in  this  particular  convention :  First,  the  property 
test  was  easily  disposed  of.  Those  who  wanted  it  saw 
that  their  cause  was  lost  and  devoted  their  energies  to 
securing  a  taxpaying  qualification.  Secondly,  the  tax- 
paying  proposition  elicited  thorough,  intelligent,  honest, 


Property  Tests  and  the  Free  Negro  69 

and  moderate  debate,  with  opinion  fairly  evenly  divided. 
Thirjlly,  the  negro-suffrage  issue  plunged  the  convention  .X: 
into  a  turmoil  of  irrational,  bombastic,  verbose  oratory,    j  x 
hiding  prejudice,  indecision,  and  stupidity. 

Five  years  later,  in  1826,  a  referendum  was  allowed 
on  the  taxpaying  clause  of  the  constitution  and  the  "^ 
voters  of  the  state  turned  it  down.  Thus  New  York  in 
1826  in  a  most  effective  and  democratic  manner  put 
away  once  for  all  property  and  taxpa3dng  qualifica- 
tions for  the  suffrage.  There  had  been  considerable 
indecision  exhibited  in  the  convention,  and  public 
opinion  seems  to  have  crystallized  soon  after,  if  indeed 
it  had  not  been  well  formed  before.  Seldom  has  it 
happened  that  a  state  has  made  such  a  significant  step 
in  such  a  fitting  way. 

In  Massachusetts  the  property  qualification  for  j 
suffrage  had  made  its  last  stand  in  1820,  when  a  constitu-  ^ 
tional  convention  was  called  to  amend  the  old  constitu- 
tion. Popular  interest  was  aroused  in  the  matter  of 
suffrage  extension,  and  there  was  every  indication  that 
property  was  going  to  be  hard  pressed  to  hold  its  own.' 
The  sentiment  prevailed  that  every  man  who  was 
subject  to  do  service  for  the  state  or  who  contributed  to 
its  support  in  the  way  of  taxes  was  entitled  to  a  vote. 
The  practical  side  of  the  issue  was  stressed  much  more 
than  the  philosophical.  Why  the  ballot  should  have 
been  looked  upon  as  the  only  fitting  reward  for  paying 
taxes  it  is  hard  to  see.  The  state  protects  life,  liberty, 
and  property  and  performs  all  the  obligations  and 
functions  implied  thereby.  But  these  seem  not  to  have 
been  recognized  as  a  return   for  taxation.    Suffrage   ■ 

» NUes  Register,  XIX,  115. 


70  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

extensionists  seem  to  have  blinded  themselves  to  the 
many  good  things  they  have  received  from  the  state  as 
-citizens,  not  as  voters. 

The  defenders  of  property  tests  quickly  demolished 
the  theory  of  ^' right"  invoked  by  those  seeking  to  extend 
the  suffrage.  The  argument  was  then  immediately 
shifted  to  the  question  of  expediency.  It  was  said  that 
the  property  test  encouraged  industry,  economy,  and 
prudence  and  gave  dignity  and  importance  to  those  who 
chose  and  those  who  were  chosen.  Further,  it  was  said 
that  men  who  had  no  property  should  not  act,  even 
indirectly,  on  those  who  had,  and  exploit  their  wealth. 
To  permit  these  things  would  work  ruin  to  the  state. 
Other  men  believed  that  the  property  qualification  had 
a  very  salutary  effect  on  young  men,  inducing  them  to 
practice  industry  and  careful  habits. 

It  is  also  interesting  to  note  some  perversions  of  the 
old  democratic  arguments.  It  was  said  that  to  let  the 
unpropertied  vote  would  surely  mean  their  exploitation 
by  employers,  and  then  the  state  would  have,  not  a  free 
electorate,  but  one  controlled  by  capitalists  able  to  swing 
elections  at  will.  Another  perversion  that  had  been  used 
before  was  utilized  to  defend  the  taxpaying  qualification. 
Instead  of  "no  taxation  without  representation"  it  was 
declared  there  should  be  "no  representation  without 
taxation."  The  most  talented  statesmen  of  the  country 
were  present  and  defended  the  property  test  in  one  way 
or  another.  The  venerable  John  Adams  was  there  and 
painted  dire  pictures  of  what  would  happen  if  the  fran- 
chise were  extended.  Daniel  Webster  and  Joseph 
Storey  gave  ample  support.' 

»  Mass.  Conv.,  1820,  Debates,  p.  135. 


Property  Tests  and  the  Free  Negro        '     71 

But  in  spite  of  all  this  talent  property  tests  did  not 
stand  a  chance.     The  arguments  were  attacked  some- 
times  with  able   retorts,   more   often   with   fallacious 
reasoning,  but  it  made  no  difference,  men  had  had 
enough  of  special  privilege  and  were  determined  to  get 
rid  of  discrimination  on  the  basis  of  property.    Men  said 
that  they  had  a  natural  right  to  vote,  but  it  only  took  a 
few  words  to  ruin  that  argument  utterly.    Men  said  that 
they  should  not  be  governed  without  their  consent,  but 
the  others  pointed  to  the  negroes.    Men  said  that  they 
should  not  be  taxed  without  being  represented,  but  the 
others  pointed  to  women.    Men  said  that  universal 
suffrage  was  a  glorious  ideal,  but  the  others  pointed 
tojniaors.    Men  said  that  they  should  be  permitted  to 
vote  in  order  to  defend  their  rights,  but  the  others 
pointed  to  manifold  benefits  received  from  the  govern- 
ment even  by  those  who  could  not  vote.     Finally  men 
said  that  they  were  going  to  vote  anyhow,  and  the  others^ 
threw  up  their  hands  in  despair.     The  best  talent  in  the  j 
country,  profound  arguments,  historical  evidence  pre-  |y 
sented  by  the  learned  Adams,  all  the  conservative  forces  \  ^ 
of  the  state,  could  not  stay  the  onward  sweep  of  suffragaJ 
expansion.    The  only  thing  that  accounts  for  it  is  a  j  ^ 
deep-seated,  firm,  but  more  or  less  unreasoning,  con- 
viction that  all  men  should  vote.     Rude  men  from  rural 
districts  would  stand  helpless  before  the  intellectual 
statesmen  thundering  at  them  in  resounding  periods. 
They  would  voice  a  few  idle  arguments  and  then  vote  on 
the   strength   of   their   inbred   conviction.     The   most  | 
impressive  thing  about  this  entire  movement  toward  /  v 
broader  suffrage  is  that  men  came  to  be  filled  with  a  \ 
fixed  determination  that  as  this  country  was  a  democracy  . 


72  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

all  men  should  have  a  hand  in  running  it.  They  were 
ready  to  argue,  but  were  determined  to  have  their  way 
in  any  event.  The  political  thought  of  the  past  twenty 
years  had  brought  men  to  a  realization  that  they  were 
part  of  the  government,  and  now  they  wanted  to  get 
their  hands  in  it. 

But  in  Massachusetts  the  process  had  been  very  slow. 
It  will  be  remembered  that  the  normal  progress  was  from 
real  estate  property  tests  to  a  personal-property  alterna- 
tive, to  taxpaying,  and  then  to  no  limitation.  Massa- 
chusetts had  reached  only  the  point  of  transition  from 
the  personal-property  alternative  to  taxpaying,  for  this 
convention  provided  an  amendment  to  the  constitu- 
tion that  all  who  paid  a  state  or  county  tax  should 
vote.' 

It  is  necessary  now  to  pass  over  a  few  years  and  come 
to  the  situation  as  it  was  in  Virginia  in  1829.  It  will  be 
remembered  that  Virginia  labored  under  a  very  limited 
franchise.  Great  stress  was  put  upon  ownership  of  real 
estate.  This  situation  in  some  ways  had  exerted  an 
unfortunate  influence  on  the  development  of  Virginia. 
Legislation  and  official  positions  were  practically  confined 
pto  landholders.  Small  landholders  and  very  worthy 
"^  men  who  owned  no  property  had  avoided  Virginia.^ 
And  just  this  type  of  men  Virginia  needed  to  develop  her 
resources  and  keep  her  in  pace  with  other  states. 
Sturdy,  rugged  pioneers,  men  who  were  ready  to  seize 
upon  undeveloped  land,  far  from  the  centers  of  city  life, 

^Originally  it  was  framed  as  merely  a  "state"  tax,  but  it  was 
objected  that  some  day  there  might  be  no  state  tax  and  thus  all  would  be 
disfranchised.  Daniel  Webster  said  the  millennium  might  come  too, 
and  so  he  approved  of  the  change. 

'  McMaster,  History  of  the  People  of  the  United  States,  IV,  393. 


Property  Tests  and  the  Free  Negro  73 

and  make  something  of  it  were  not  the  sort  of  men  who 
were  willing  to  tolerate  suffrage  restrictions.  They  were 
the  kind  of  men  who  were  populating  Illinois,  Indiana, 
and  Wisconsin,  the  kind  of  men  who  cared  very  little 
about  government  anyhow,  who  looked  upon  it  as  a 
mere  convenience  but  would  not  consent  to  have  it 
autocratic  in  the  sKghtest  degree.  Where  they  were  in 
the  majority,  as  in  the  western  states,  the  question  of 
property  restrictions  never  arose.  These  were  the  men 
whom  Virginia  was  driving  away  from  her  border. 
Then  too  there  was  a  steadily  growing  class  of  men 
within  the  state  who  paid  taxes  and  yet  could  not  vote. 
Conservatism  was  strongly  rooted  in  Virginia  and  bid 
fair  to  hold  the  reins  a  few  years  longer. 

In  these  circumstances  a  constitutional  convention 
was  called  in  1829.  A  majority  of  the  delegates  and 
people  at  large  considered  the  chief  question  at  issue  that 
of  suffrage.  But  the  very  first  presentation  of  the 
question  in  debate  closed  the  door  against  any  argument 
on  the  propriety  of  some  kind  of  property  qualification.' 
A  resolution  was  put  before  the  house  providing  a  free- 
hold quahfication,  the  point  left  open  for  debate  being 
the  size  or  value  of  the  freehold  to  be  required.  Such 
men  as  Madison,  Monroe,  Marshall,  Randolph,  and 
Upshur  were  there  to  defend  the  freehold  quahfication. 
At  no  time  was  there  serious  danger  of  its  being  lost. 
So  the  debate  at  once  centered  around  fixing  the  size  or 
value  of  the  freehold. 

A  rather  pecuhar  situation  existed  in  Virginia.  There 
were  very  large  tracts  of  land  in  the  western  part  of  the 
state,  but  this  land  was  practically  valueless.     On  the 

^  Virginia  Conv.,  1829-30,  Debates ^  p.  345. 


74  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

one  hand  it  was  thought  desirable  to  allow  those  pioneers 
who  explored  and  settled  this  land  to  vote,  for  in  many- 
ways  they  were  the  finest  type  that  any  state  could 
boast  of.  And  on  the  other  hand  certain  speculators  had- 
obtained  title  to  large  areas  of  this  land,  and  if  a  mere 
freehold  were  to  be  a  license  to  vote  they  could  dispose 
of  it  in  small  tracts  and  conceivably  could  work  great 
corruption  by  turning  it  over  to  undesirables.  Hence  it 
was  better  to  prescribe  to  the  freehold  a  fixed  value 
or  a  fixed  area  that  should  entitle  a  man  to  vote.  But 
the  problem  was  complicated  because  of  the  more 
thickly  populated  East.  If  a  value  were  fixed,  the 
eastern  owner  would  be  satisfied,  for  a  small  piece  of  land 
would  be  valued  relatively  high,  but  the  westerner  must 
own  a  great  many  acres  of  land  in  order  to  be  worth 
as  much  as  the  easterner.  But  if  a  certain  size  were 
fixed,  the  westerner  could  easily  satisfy  the  test,  while 
the  man  in  the  East  would  find  it  a  hardship.  But 
even  so  a  property  test  of  some  kind  was  a  foregone 
conclusion. 

The  virtues  of  the  landowner  were  loudly  extolled. 
He  was  the  only  safe  repository  of  civil  power!  The 
very  fact  that  he  possessed  land  would  insure  his  being 
cautious,  wise,  and  prudent  in  dealing  with  the  state 
financesT^f'lie  paid  taxes  and  supported  the  state.  If 
the  rabble  were  let  in  property  would  be  exploited.  But 
it  was  not  necessary  to  argue  very  hard.  Everything 
went  well  here  for  the  property  owners.  In  answer  to  the 
argument  about  taxation  and  representation  they  said 
that  the  interests  of  the  property  owner  were  so  closely 
identified  with  the  interests  of  other  men  that  no  possible 


< 


Property  Tests  and  the  Free  Negro  75 

harm  could   come  from  leaving  the  exercise  of  the 
franchise  with  them. 

The  opposition  to  the  property  interests  was  charac-  ] 
terized  by  an  attitude  of  bitter  hopelessness  in  great  •■■^ 
contrast  to  the  situation  in  New  York  and  Massa- 
chusetts nine  years  before.  Here  in  Virginia,  the 
original  stronghold  of  America's  aristocracy,  the  demo- 
cratic fever  of  the  age  had  not  yet  penetrated.  In  some 
.other  states,  Rhode  Island,  for  instance,  there  was  plenty 
of  discontent,  but  inability  to  secure  an  extension  of  the 
suffrage.  In  Virginia  all  was  peaceful.  The  element 
that  would  have  made  a  loud  outcry  against  the  restric- 
tion of  suffrage  had  been  driven  away  from  the  state, 
and  hence  it  was  free  of  the  turbulent  Democrats  who 
were  making  life  so  miserable  for  the  old  Federalists  up 
North.  Office-holders  in  Virginia  exerted  not  a  Httle 
influence,  and  to  a  man,  of  course,  they  favored  a 
restriction  of  the  suffrage  to  those  who  possessed  a 
freehold.  The  feeling  of  bitterness  was  occasionally 
exhibited  toward  these  smug  office-holders  who  spoke 
so  highly  of  the  status  quo.  They  said  that  things  were 
moving  splendidly  and  that  it  was  foolish  to  make  a 
change.  But  they  did  not  always  escape  without  suffer- 
ing a  retort.^  However,  the  most  serious  consequence 
of  the  restricted  suffrage,  in  the  minds  of  most  of  those 

^  In  answer  to  one  of  these  men  it  was  said:  "A  good  official  station 
has  a  charming  effect  in  smoothing  the  asperities  of  life  and  imparting 
brighter  tints  to  the  scenes  around  one.  But  it  does  not  follow  from  all 
this  that  the  people  are  content  with  their  disfranchisement.  I  wish  the 
worthy  gentleman  a  long  continuance  of  the  advantages  he  has  so  richly 
merited,  but  my  first  wish  is  for  my  country." — Virginia  Conv.,  1829-30, 
Debates,  p.  360. 


76  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

who  did  urge  a  broader  extension,  seemed  to  be  the 
continued  tendency  to  drive  worthy,  valuable  men  out 
of  the  state  when  they  were  needed  so  badly/ 

The  ultimate  result  of  the  labors  of  this  convention 
was  a  rather  muddled  qualification  that  was  sufficiently 
^illiberal  to  satisfy  the  old  guard.  It  provided  that  one 
must  have  an  estate  or  freehold  worth  twenty-five 
dollars,  or  be  in  occupation  of  a  house  worth  twenty 
dollars  yearly,  or  else  be  the  father  of  a  family  and  pay 
taxes.  This  convention  also  rounded  out  its  work  by 
disfranchising  for  an  infamous  crime  and  excluding  the 
insane  and  paupers  and  also  soldiers  and  sailors.  The 
negro  question  naturally  could  not  arise  in  Virginia, 
and  the  position  of  the  foreigner  was  no  problem  here. 

^  A  delegate  complained:  "  I  have  seen  respectable  young  men  of  the 
country,  the  mechanic,  the  merchant,  the  farmer  of  mature  age,  with 
intelligence  superior  to  that  of  one-half  the  freeholders,  and  glowing 
with  a  patriotism  that  would  make  them  laugh  at  death  in  defense  of 
their  country;  I  have  seen  such  commanded  to  stand  back  from  the 
polls,  to  give  way  to  the  owner  of  a  petty  freehold." — Virginia  Conv., 
1829-30,  Debates,  p.  353. 


CHAPTER  IV 

THE  END  OF  PROPERTY  AND  TAXPAYING  QUALIFI- 
CATIONS AND  THE  DEADLOCK  ON  THE 
NEGRO  QUESTION 

The  spirit  of  democracy  fostered  by  Andrew  Jackson 
and  prevailing  through  the  thirties  is  to  be  contrasted 
in  some  particulars  with  the  Jeffersonian  democracy  in 
the  twenty-five  years  preceding.  Both  men  were  ardent 
Democrats,  but  Jackson  was  a  new  and  energetic  sort. 
While  the  earlier  doctrine  tended  to  belittle  government 
functions,  to  decentralize  the  machinery  of  government, 
to  place  emphasis  upon  local  institutions  and  stimulate 
the  people  to  govern  themselves  in  just  as  simple  a 
manner  as  they  could,  and  to  cut  the  business  of  govern- 
ment down  to  a  minimum,  the  spirit  of  Jackson's  time 
was  to  look  upon  government  machinery  as  a  vast  and 
mighty  engine  belonging  to  the  people,  in  the  running  of 
which  they  should  all  have  a  hand.  The  more  people) 
there  were  in  the  government  organization  the  better. 
Any  man  who  knew  enough  to  write  his  name  was  con- 
sidered fit  to  be  president,  and  lacking  opportunity  to 
get  that  office  he  was  encouraged  to  get  any  other  berth 
which  might  present  itself.  The  common  man  on  the 
farm  and  in  the  workshop  was  goaded  into  a  realization 
that  he  was  part  and  parcel  of  a  great  government,  that 
nothing  was  too  good  for  him,  nothing  was  beyond  his 
ken,  and  that  all  should  mix  in  the  vast  machinery  of  the 
state.  The  proletariat  was  exalted,  and  special  privilege 
was  repudiated  in  riotous  denunciation. 

77 


78  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

The  political  turmoil  following  upon  Jackson's 
inauguration  in  1829  led  to  a  general  awakening  of  civic 
consciousness  such  as  never  had  been  known  before. 
The  man  who  took  no  note  of  what  was  going  on  in 
politics  must  have  been  indeed  a  dull  one.  This  stirring 
up  of  political  interest  could  have  but  one  outcome — a 
desire  to  gain  effective  means  of  expression.  While 
Jacksonian  Democrats  may  have  had  little  to  say  directly 
about  the  suffrage,  all  that  they  stood  for  necessarily 
involved  the  very  broadest  suffrage.  Universal  partici- 
pation in  government  function  could  not  possibly 
tolerate  a  restriction  on  white  manhood  suffrage.  Other 
factors  of  course  contributed  to  the  case  against  con- 
servatism. The  vast  expansion  of  territory  in  the  West 
and  new  state  organizations  bidding  for  immigrants, 
both  foreign  and  native,  added  weight  to  the  democratic 
doctrine  which  was  bearing  down  irresistibly  upon  the 
East.  White  manhood  suffrage  was  the  modern  ideal, 
and  the  typical  rough  westerner  could  look  down  with 
contemptuous  disdain,  equal  to  that  of  the  aristocrat 
himself,  upon  any  men  who  were  so  far  lost  in  the  past 
as  to  speak  of  serious  restrictions  upon  the  new  ideal. 
In  the  East  itself  and  the  near  West  the  growth  of  cities 
and  an  industrial  class  that  possessed  no  land  added  to 
the  number  who  had  no  patience  with  the  old  restrictions. 
The  question  had  almost  passed  the  stage  of  argument, 
and  it  was  only  in  places  like  Rhode  Island,  Pennsyl- 
vania, and  Virginia  that  the  populace  lacked  means  to 
gain  its  end.  It  was  merely  a  matter  of  a  little  time 
even  in  these  strongholds,  for  not  even  the  closed  cor- 
poration, the  restricted  electorate,  could  stand  out 
forever. 


1-% 


The  End  of  Property  Tests  79 

The  new  spirit,  or  the  manifestation  of  the  old  spirit 
in  new  and  violent  forms,  found  expression  for  the  most 
part  in  new  constitutions  in  old  states  and  remodeling 
of  old  constitutions,  for  during  the  thirties  only  two  more 
states  found  their  way  into  the  Union.  Arkansas 
appeared  in  1836  with  a  constitution  innocent  of  all 
restrictions.  White  male  citizens  resident  in  the  state 
for  six  months  were  all  welcome  at  the  polls.  Soldiers 
and  sailors  were  excluded,  but  they  alone.  Michigan 
in  1835  had  a  constitution  that  was  identical  to  that  of 
Arkansas  in  its  suffrage  provisions.  The  geographical 
location  of  Arkansas  forestalled  any  considerable  debate 
on  the  free-negro  question,  and  foreigners  did  not  go  as 
far  south  as  Arkansas  in  any  great  numbers.  But  both 
the  negro  question  and  foreign  suffrage  could  trouble 
Michigan,  and  did  at  no  far-distant  time. 

Delaware  provided  herself  with  a  new  constitution 
in  1 83 1,  but  the  electorate  was  not  enlarged  thereby. 
It  will  be  remembered  that  Delaware  demanded  the 
payment  of  a  state  or  county  tax.  The  requirement  was 
perpetuated  in  the  new  constitution,  and  Delaware 
proved  to  be  one  of  the  last  places  where  the  vestiges  of 
property  restriction  were  able  to  hold  out  awhile  longer. 
On  the  other  hand  Mississippi  found  occasion  to  throw 
aside  a  similar  restriction  the  following  year,  and  her  ^ 
new  constitution  admitted  all  white  male  citizens  after 
a  year  of  residence.  It  will  be  readily  understood  how 
the  little  states  on  the  Atlantic  seaboard  were  better 
able  to  withstand  democratic  influences.  There  was  no 
new  territory  to  be  taken  up  to  accommodate  great 
colonies  of  pioneers.  The  population  could  not  grow 
rapidly  except  in  the  few  industrial  centers,  and  the  old 


8o  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

population  was  conservative.  Rhode  Island  and  Dela- 
ware were  much  alike  in  this  regard,  and  it  was  not  until 
the  industrial  element  threatened  revolution  that 
restrictions  on  the  suffrage  gave  way  in  Rhode  Island. 
In  the  West  they  were  ignored  in  natural,  peaceable 
fashion.  When  Tennessee  came  to  make  a  new  constitu- 
tion in  1834  the  old  property  qualification  was  abandoned 
as  if  by  common  consent  and  with  scarcely  a  struggle. 
Very  early  in  the  convention  a  resolution  was  introduced 
suggesting  that  no  property  qualification  should  be 
established,  and  that,  apparently,  ended  the  matter. 
Tennessee  had  a  large  share  of  what  has  been  called  ''the 
region  of  small  farms  and  household  industry,"^  which 
accounts  for  the  matter-of-fact  abandonment  of  the 
old-time  tests.  In  states  of  the  West  the  relics  of  con- 
servatism were  simply  dropped,  almost  without  a 
thought,  as  soon  as  a  really  representative  assembly 
could  get  together.  But  if  the  property  and  taxpaying 
qualification  was  taking  care  of  itself  and  dying  a  natural 
death,  the  free-negro  problem  was  still  stirring  up 
considerable  trouble,  especially  in  the  border  states. 

In  this  same  Tennessee  convention  the  negro  question 
received  a  great  deal  of  attention.  The  first  draft  of  a 
suffrage  clause  for  the  new  constitution  presented  to  the 
convention  proposed  full  manhood  suffrage — not  exclud- 
ing free  negroes.  The  outstanding  arguments  offered 
in  favor  of  admitting  the  negro  to  the  suffrage  were  two 
in  number,  and  both  of  them  were  decidedly  material- 
istic.    It  was  said  in  the  first  place  that  the  negro  did 

^  W.  A.  Schaper,  Sectionalism  and  Representation  in  South  Carolina, 
p.  427:  "It  was  the  undeveloped  back  country — the  region  of  small 
farms  and  household  industry — that  stamped  its  ideals  on  the  life  of  the 
nation." 


The  End  of  Property  Tests  8i 

military  service,  and  in  the  second  place  that  he  paid 
taxes.  The  idea  of  expediency  was  completely  lost 
sight  of.  Nobody  argued  that  it  was  for  the  best  inter- 
ests of  the  state  that  free  negroes  should  be  admitted 
to  the  polls,  although  here  and  there  a  word  was  said 
about  the  negro  having  a  natural  right  to  participate. 
For  the  most  part  the  ballot  was  looked  upon  as  a  sort 
of  compensation  for  doing  service  for  the  state.  Men 
always  had  trouble,  even  in  the  case  of  white  people 
only,  in  harmonizing  military  service  and  exclusion  from 
the  suffrage.  It  never  seemed  right  that  a  person  should 
fight  for  his  native  land  and  not  be  permitted  a  voice  in 
its  management.  This  had  been  a  stumbling-block  in 
connection  with  the  veterans  of  1812  in  states  where  a 
property  test  prevailed,  and  again  it  was  a  problem  here, 
even  twenty  years  after  the  war.  And  now  it  came  up 
in  connection  with  the  negro.  As  usual  a  compromise 
was  sought  and  found.  It  was  suggested  in  a  resolution 
that  the  right  of  suffrage  be  taken  from  free  colored 
persons  and  that  they  be  exempted  from  military  service. 
And  another  resolution  aimed  to  exempt  them  from  poll 
taxes.  These  compromising  steps  met  with  considerable 
favor.  Of  course  they  were  nothing  but  a  bribe  that 
served  to  relieve  the  dissatisfaction  at  being  excluded 
from  the  suffrage  and  also  served  to  satisfy  the  scruples 
of  those  who  were  impressed  with  the  injustice  of  any 
other  terms  of  exclusion.  It  was  indeed  necessary  to 
make  some  concessions  to  those  defending  the  rights  of 
the  free  negro,  fox  the  convention  was  not  all  of  one  mind 
in  the  matter.' 

^  Even  in  this  convention  a  resolution  was  presented  to  exempt  boys 
under  twenty-one  from  service  in  order  to  escape  the  inconsistency  of  the 
situation  (Tenn.  Conv.,  1834,  Journal,  p.  34). 


82  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

It  is  interesting  to  note  the  decided  reluctance  to 
rely  upon  pure  expediency  arguments.  As  said  before, 
the  defenders  of  the  negro  for  the  most  part  based  their 
arguments  on  materialistic  considerations.  The  oppo- 
sition devoted  itself  largely  to  discrediting  or  belittling 
these  arguments  and  wasted  a  vast  amount  of  time  and 
energy  on  philosophical  discussions  dealing  with  the 
social  compact  and  natural  rights.^  The  scrupulous 
conscience  could  much  more  easily  reconcile  itself  to  the 
disagreeable  task  of  excluding  a  free,  taxpaying  negro 
from  the  polls  after  listening  to  a  verbose  dissertation 
to  the  effect  that  his  ancestors  had  not  participated  in  a 
mythological  social  compact  than  if  it  merely  were 
declared  that  under  the  existing  circumstances  it  was 
decidedly  to  the  best  interests  of  the  state  in  general  to 
exclude  the  negro  for  the  time  being  at  least.  That 
sounded  too  blunt  altogether.  And  thus  cracker-box 
philosophy  was  exploited  to  salve  disturbed  consciences, 
and  it  was  found  to  be  more  and  more  popular  as  the 
negro  question  pressed  more  insistently. 

In  North  Carolina  the  following  year,  1835,  the 
same  problem  was  in  evidence.  Previous  to  this  time 
there  had  been  nothing  in  the  constitution  to  prevent 
the  negro  from  exercising  the  right  of  suffrage.  This 
was  a  rare  situation  in  the  South,  but  it  is  said  on 
good  authority  that  practically  none  of  the  black  race 
was  suffered  to  attend  the  polls.^    Where  the  law  was 

^  Resolution  presented  by  Mr.  Marr  and  defended  at  great  length: 
"That  free  persons  of  color,  including  mulattoes,  mustees,  and  Indians, 
were  not  parties  to  our  political  compact,  nor  were  they  represented  in 
the  convention  which  framed  the  evidence  of  the  compact,  under  which 
the  free  people  of  the  state  and  of  the  United  States  are  associated  for 
civil  government." — ^Tenn.  Conv.,  1834,  Journal,  p.  107. 

'  Weeks,  Political  Science  Quarterly,  IX,  675. 


The  End  of  Property  Tests  83 

lax  public  opinion  filled  the  breach,  and  negroes  for 
the  most  part  were  sufficiently  content  with  their  free- 
dom and  kept  away  from  the  polls.  Virginia  pro- 
vided a  good  illustration.  The  constitution  of  1830 
did  not  exclude  them  in  terms,  and  in  fact  this  was 
not  done  until  1864,  yet  the  same  authority  declares 
that  "negroes  never  voted  in  Virginia  in  the  period 
from  the  Revolution  to  the  Civil  War.''  It  therefore 
required  some  boldness  for  delegates  to  press  the  cause 
of  free  negroes. 

The  first  committee  report  in  the  North  Carolina 
convention  excluded  negroes  and  mulattoes  within  four 
degrees.  The  social  inferiority  of  the  negro  was  much 
stressed.  It  was  said  that  public  sentiment  would 
inevitably  exclude  him  from  most  of  the  important 
activities  of  social  and  political  life  and  that  it  was 
foolish  to  attempt  to  bring  about  a  situation  of  equality 
by  law  that  could  not  exist  in  fact.  It  was  recognized 
that  free  negroes  were  in  a  peculiarly  difficult  position. 
They  were  a  sort  of  buffer  between  the  whites  and  the 
slaves.  Some  looked  upon  this  group  as  a  mongrel, 
outcast,  nondescript  lot  that  were  eminently  undesirable, 
while  others  looked  upon  them  as  a  link  between  the 
other  two  groups,  through  whom  more  satisfactory  and 
sympathetic  relationships  could  be  developed.  The 
number  of  free  negroes  was  by  no  means  inconsiderable 
in  this  part  of  the  country.  To  a  certain  extent  negroes 
were  being  freed  by  their  masters  as  the  sentiment 
against  slavery  developed,  and  this  very  situation  con- 
tained a  menace,  said  some,  for  if  the  free  negroes  were 
permitted  to  vote,  their  ex-masters  would  have  such  a 


84  Suffrage  in  Uie  United  States 

strong  influence  over  them  as  to  control  the  suffrage  to 
their  own  ends/ 

Compromises  were  introduced  in  the  North  Carolina 
convention  as  elsewhere.  Whereas  in  some  other  states 
compensating  benefits  were  conferred  in  repayment  for 
exclusion,  in  North  Carolina  the  compromises  took  a 
different  form.  It  was  suggested  that  additional 
qualifications  be  exacted  of  the  negro  in  order  that  he 
might  vote.  Two  hundred  and  fifty  dollars'  worth  of 
property  was  suggested  by  some;  others  thought  that  if 
a  negro  had  never  been  convicted  of  any  misdemeanor  or 
crime  he  should  be  permitted  to  vote.  But  such  halfway 
measures  derogated  from  the  principle  involved  and 
really  failed  to  satisfy  either  side.  It  was  declared  that 
if  these  qualifications  were  appropriate  at  all  they 
should  be  applied  to  all  men,  and  most  of  those  who 
opposed  the  negro  suffrage  could  not  be  moved  by  addi- 
tional qualifications  that  really  had  nothing  to  do  with 
the  negro  as  a  negro. 

The  taxation-without-representation  argument  was 
introduced  briefly,  but  the  convention  met  it  with  some 
impatience.  These  old-time  arguments,  relics  of  Revo- 
lutionary days,  always  have  been  exploited,  and  it  is 
interesting  to  note  how  irritating  they  were,  for  as  the 
science  of  politics  developed  and  new  situations  appeared 
men  saw  how  utterly  impossible  it  was  to  carry  out  the 
doctrines  to  their  logical  conclusion.  It  would  mean 
that  every  individual  who  paid  a  tax  should  vote,  that 

^  Yet  it  is  hardly  credible  that  the  type  of  men  who  set  their  slaves 
free  (philanthropists,  humanitarians,  Quakers,  etc.)  were  the  sort  to 
indulge  in  corrupt  politics  or  exploit  the  race  they  emancipated. 


The  End  of  Property  Tests  85 

all  who  were  governed  should  have  opportunity  to  consent 
or  dissent,  etc.  But  the  phrases  had  a  charming  sound 
until  they  worked  like  boomerangs,  and  then  they  stirred 
up  disagreeable  doubts  and  were  dreadfully  annoying. 

The  North  Carolina  convention  finally  decided  to 
exclude  the  negro  completely  and  not  even  let  him  in 
under  the  various  compromises  that  were  suggested.  It 
was  a  very  close  decision,  sixty-four  to  fifty-five.^  If 
what  has  been  said  by  certain  writers  be  quite  true,  that 
negroes  as  a  matter  of  fact  did  not  exercise  the  suffrage 
even  when  it  was  not  forbidden  them,  it  is  rather  difficult 
to  understand  why  so  much  attention  should  be  given 
to  the  question.  It  would  seem  that  public  sentiment 
was  decidedly  against  their  voting,  and  yet  their  cause 
was  ably  supported  by  a  considerable  number  in  the 
convention.  It  indicates  that  the  question  was  largely 
one  of  principle. 

This  year  did  not  witness  the  complete  abandonment 
of  the  property  qualification  in  North  Carolina.  It  was 
still  made  necessary  to  possess  fifty  acres  of  land  in  order 
to  vote  for  senators.  The  old  aristocratic  element  was 
still  able  to  hold  a  remaining  vestige  of  their  special 
privilege.  It  was  on  the  wane,  of  course,  and  this  is 
one  of  the  exceedingly  rare  cases  where  they  were  able 
to  avoid  the  last  final  step  and  make  the  last  exit  in  two 
steps,  as  it  were.  Since  1776  it  has  very  seldom  hap- 
pened that  suffrage  qualifications  have  differed  for  any 
public  offices. 

In  tracing  out  the  story  of  the  suffrage  a  year  or 
two  later,  Pennsylvania  looms  up  large,  for  in  1837  a 

»  N.C.  Conv.,  1834-35,  Debates,  p.  351. 


86  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

convention  was  held  in  that  state,  the  records  of  which 
filled  more  than  a  dozen  large  volumes,  in  which  the 
suffrage  question  fills  its  share  of  pages.  The  property 
interests  made  a  tremendous  effort  to  "come  back,"  as 
the  saying  is,  but  they  were  only  able  to  cling  to  the  tax- 
paying  requirement;  the  hot  debate  which  bade  fair  to 
lead  either  side  to  victory  concerned  the  right  of  the  free 
negro  to  vote.  A  new  tone  was  struck  in  this  con- 
vention in  connection  with  the  negro  problem.  Hereto- 
fore it  had  been  treated  almost  solely  as  a  political 
problem;  now  the  other  phase  of  the  question  was 
presented  with  greater  emphasis,  and  it  was  maintained 
that  other  than  political  considerations  would  inevitably 
determine  the  question  despite  any  action  the  lawmakers 
might  take.  It  was  pointed  out  that  public  sentiment, 
even  where  the  law  was  in  doubt,  arose  above  all  law  and 
the  constitution  and  would  keep  the  negro  from  the  polls. 
It  was  very  significant  that  men  frequently  asserted  that 
to  give  the  negro  suffrage  would  be  to  imply  a  promise 
that  could  never  be  carried  out.  It  implied  an  equality 
that  race  characteristics  belied.  The  Indian  could  not 
be  elevated — he  died  out;    the  negro   could  not  be 

elevated ?    They  did  not  undertake  to  answer  the 

question,  and  it  has  not  been  answered  yet,  but  they 
stuck  tenaciously  to  the  proposition  that  he  could  not 
be  elevated  and  should  not  be  incorporated  into  the  body 
politic.  The  prospect  of  negroes  sitting  in  legislatures, 
in  the  jury  box,  on  the  bench,  at  the  bar,  in  all  the  posi- 
tions of  respect  and  honor,  repelled  men  with  such  force 
as  to  cause  them  to  lose  sight  of  all  abstract  political 
doctrine. 


The  End  of  Property  Tests  87 

Up  to  about  this  time  the  negro  had  not  been  a 
serious  problem,  for  he  was  not  present  in  sufficient 
numbers  even  to  threaten  to  exercise  any  great  influence 
in  the  government.  But  the  menace  was  growing.  The 
slavery  controversy  was  waxing  hot;  the  abolitionists 
were  carrying  fiery  brands  wherever  they  went;  in  a 
word,  the  political  situation  over  slavery  was  coming  to 
a  crucial  point,  and  race  prejudice  was  developing  to  a 
point  it  had  never  reached  before.  This  race  prejudice, 
or  consciousness  of  racial  distinction,  was  present  in  the 
Pennsylvania  convention  in  a  way  that  it  was  not  in  the 
earlier  conventions.  This  accounts  for  the  sort  of  argu- 
ment outlined  above.  Arguments  telling  of  the  negro's 
rights  and  extolling  his  virtues  and  good  qualities  could 
have  no  effect.  No  matter  what  was  said  men  were 
conscious  of  a  distinction  between  the  races  which  they 
viewed  with  jealousy  and  growing  alarm,  and  all  the  old 
arguments  pro  and  con  fell  upon  deaf  ears.  From  now 
on  men  were  likely  to  vote  from  prejudice  one  way  or 
the  other. 

Much  opprobrium  was  heaped  upon  those  who  were 
said  to  vote  against  the  negro  simply  because  his  skin 
was  dark.  But  few  men  really  did  that;  the  dark  skin 
was  to  them  merely  an  outward  indication  of  qualities 
which  fostered  the  racial  antipathy.  But  in  the  midst 
of  this  illogical  prejudice  it  is  satisfying  to  discover  an 
argument  based  on  expediency.  One  of  the  speakers 
in  the  convention  pointed  out  that  negroes  had  all  the 
rights  and  privileges  of  citizenship  and  that  it  was 
not  expedient  to  let  them  vote.  They  were  no  more 
discriminated  against  than  were  minors,  women,  and 


88  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

non-taxpayers.  The  elective  franchise  should  only  be 
given  to  those  through  whom  the  peace  and  prosperity 
of  society  would  be  promoted.^ 

The  defenders  of  the  negro  followed  the  usual  line. 

/^ne  delegate  struck  a  new  chord  when  he  opposed  the 

j  exclusion  of  the  negro  because  the  basis  of  exclusion  was 

\  a  fact  over  which  he  had  no  control — his  color.    A 

suffrage  qualification,  said  he,  should  be  such  that  any 

.  man  could  attain  it.    A  high  property  test,  a  taxpaying 

test,  a  long  residence,  age,  literacy,  were  qualifications 

which  a  man  could  acquire,  but  race  or  color  violated 

sound   principles   of   democracy   and   left  nothing   to 

strive  for;    such  men  were  hopelessly  disfranchised.^ 

This  man  invoked  a  new  principle  of  democracy,  but 

his  principle  would  have  included  woman  too,  although 

no  one  thought  of  that.     It  merely  shows  how  inevitably 

both  sides  were  driven  to  decide  the  whole  proposition 

on  the  issue  of  expediency. 

It  may  be  well  to  consider  briefly  the  question  as  to 
whether  the  negroes  as  a  group  needed  special  representa- 
tion. It  has  been  characteristic  of  the  political  parties 
in  this  country  since  the  breakdown  of  the  Federalists 
in  the  early  part  of  the  nineteenth  century  that  they  have 
cut  athwart  all  social  and  economic  groups.  There  has 
been  no  labor  part}^,  no  capitalist  party,  no  religious 
party,  no  conservative  or  radical  party.  All  parties 
have  appealed  to  all  classes,  rich  and  poor.  East  and  West. 
But  the  advent  of  the  negro  presented  a  very  distinct 
group,  and  it  was  considered  by  some  that  such  a  group 
needed  special  representation  that  could  not  be  attained 

^  Penn.  Conv.,  1837,  Debates,  IX,  348. 
^  Ibid.,  p.  SS2. 


The  End  of  Property  Tests  89 

through  any  existing  parties.  However,  it  is  significant 
that,  while  the  Republican  party  has  claimed  most  of  the 
negroes,  there  is  no  essential  reason  why  they  should  not 
distribute  themselves  as  the  white  men  have  done 
throughout  the  other  parties.  Fortunately  no  deliberate 
attempt  was  made  to  treat  this  group  as  deserving  special 
representation,  even  though  it  was  considered  at  this 
time. 

Of  course  the  usual  compromises  were  suggested  to  let 
the  negro  in,  but  they  were  all  repudiated,  and  the  negro 
was  denied  the  suffrage  by  a  vote  of  seventy-seven  to 
forty-five.'  This  denial  of  the  suffrage  to  negroes  gave 
rise  to  considerable  opposition  throughout  the  state, 
where  the  abolition  movement  was  relatively  strong. 
The  action  of  Pennsylvania  in  excluding  the  negro  marks 
a  turning-point  in  the  development  of  the  negro-suffrage 
controversy.  In  a  number  of  states  negroes  had  not 
been  excluded  in  the  past  and  never  were  excluded. 
There  were  some  other  states  which  had  not  excluded 
negroes  in  the  first  place,  but  as  time  went  on  it  was  found 
desirable  to  do  so.  Pennsylvania  was  the  last  of  these 
states.^  From  this  time  on  the  actual  negro-suffrage 
situation  did  not  change  until  the  Fourteenth  Amend- 
ment was  in  effect.  The  other  states  not  included  in 
the  two  foregoing  categories  were  either  southern  states 
where  the  negro  did  not  vote,  no  matter  what  the  law 
was,  or  else  states  which  adopted  exclusion  of  the  negro 
from  the  beginning.  This  action  of  Pennsylvania,  then, 
put  an  end  to  changes  in  the  negro-suffrage  situation 
until  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  was  passed.     There 

^  Ibid.,  X,  106. 

'  New  York  did  this  in  1846,  but  it  was  defeated  on  referendum. 


>^ 


IX 


90 


Suffrage  in  the  United  States 


t  j  were  only  six  states  where  the  negro  could  vote,  and  they 
\  were  in  New  England.^ 

The  position  of  the  negro  was  settled  until  the  war. 
There  was  considerable  debate  in  the  conventions  which 
followed,  and  the  negroes  did  not  lack  champions.  But 
in  spite  of  further  argument  and  disputation  his  case  was 
settled  and  no  more  changes  were  made.  Property  and 
;  taxpaying  qualifications  too  had  almost  gone  down  to 
defeat.  One  of  the  last  struggles  was  staged  in  the 
Pennsylvania  convention  of  1837.  It  is  surprising  that 
such  a  strong  element  appeared  in  advocacy  of  a  property 
test.  The  old  constitution  provided  that  one  must 
have  paid  a  state  or  county  tax  in  order  to  vote,  and 
while  there  was  no  chance  of  reverting  to  a  property  test 
there  was  plenty  of  argument  presented  which  looked 
toward  such  reaction.  There  were  also  a  great  many 
who  would  not  consider  a  property  test  but  were  deter- 
mined not  to  go  farther  than  a  taxpaying  qualifica- 
tion, and  around  this  proposition  the  debate  centered. 
Once  again  the  old  slogan  about  taxation  and  repre- 
sentation was  worked  backward  to  the  confusion  of  the 

^  The  situation  is  well  summarized  by  Weeks,  Pol.  Set.  Quar., 
X,  677. 


Never  Excluded 

Altered  Constitution 

Southern  States 

Negro  Always 

Negro 

to  Exclude 

Excluded 

Negroes 

by  Law 

Maine 

Delaware,  1792 

Alabama 

California 

Massachusetts 

Kentucky,  1799 

Arkansas 

Colorado 

New  Hampshire 

Maryland,  1809 

Florida 

Illinois 

New  York 

Connecticut,  1818 

Georgia 

Indiana 

Rhode  Island 

New  Jersey,  1820 

Louisiana 

Iowa 

Vermont 

Pennsylvania,  1838 

Mississippi 

Kansas 

North  Carolina 

Michigan 

South  Carolina 

Minnesota 

Tennessee 

Missouri 

Texas 

Nebraska 

Virginia 

Nevada 

Ohio 

Oregon 

Utah 

Wisconsin 

The  End  of  Property  Tests  91 

radicals.^  The  old  favorite  arguments  invariably  got 
their  advocates  into  trouble. 

A  tax  qualification,  it  was  presumed,  would  keep  the 
most  undesirable  element  from  the  polls,  but  in  order  to 
make  it  as  low  as  possible  it  was  sought  to  have  state, 
federal,  county,  city,  borough,  road,  and  miHtia  taxes 
included.  Then  nearly  every  man  could  quaHfy  under 
one  or  the  other.  It  was  pointed  out  that  circumstances 
might  transpire  to  put  an  end  to  county  taxes,  and  that 
many  who  only  qualified  under  them  would  find  them- 
selves disfranchised.  The  theory  of  a  tax  qualification 
simply  assumed  that  by  paying  a  tax  the  individual 
contributed  to  the  support  of  the  government  and 
therefore  was  entitled  to  participate  in  its  management. 
The  weakness  of  this  theory  was  not  pointed  out,  namely, 
that  an  industrious  worker  who  really  produced  wealth 
might  well  contribute  vastly  more  to  the  ultimate  support 
of  the  state,  even  though  he  paid  no  tax,  than  the  idle 
person  who  did  pay  taxes.  But  political  economy  was  an 
undeveloped  science. 

There  were  some  who  opposed  the  tying  up  of  suffrage 
to  a  taxpaying  test  because  it  virtually  left  the  matter 
in  the  hands  of  the  legislature.  That  body  could  impose 
a  relatively  high  tax  or,  on  the  other  hand,  could  establish 

=■  Penn.  Conv.,  1837,  Debates,  III,  i.?i.  This  delegate  was  shocked 
"to  hear  it  maintained  that  the  tax  qualification  was  an  exercise  of 
arbitrary  and  tyrannical  authority  on  the  part  of  the  state  government. 
Why,  Sir,  it  was  on  this  principle — that  taxation  and  representation 
are  inseparable — that  our  Revolution  was  founded.  It  was  from  that 
abstract  principle  that  it  arose — for  no  one  ever  pretended  that  the 
tax  was  an  onerous  one.  I  would  not  suppose  there  is  a  majority  here 
ready  to  put  a  stigma  on  the  principle  which  our  fathers  asserted  so 
strenuously  and  at  so  much  peril,  and  which  they  laid  at  the  very 
foundation  of  the  free  institutions  which  they  estabHshed." 


9[2  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

) 

An  exceedingly  low  tax,  which  would  be  no  obstacle  at  all. 
Indeed  it  seems  that  thousands  of  men  already  exercised 
the  franchise  in  virtue  of  paying  ten  cents  a  year  in 
taxes.  In  such  a  state  of  affairs  the  theory  of  a  tax 
qualification  might  be  satisfied,  but  it  did  not  keep  away 
the  undesirable  element  which  was  so  greatly  despised 
by  the  aristocracy.^  Quite  a  large  number  voted  for 
the  tax  qualification  as  a  choice  of  evils.  They  could  not 
get  a  free  suffrage  and  hence  accepted  a  simple  tax 
requirement  which  by  means  of  suitable  legislation  could 
be  reduced  to  a  minimum. 

The  oratorical  denunciation  of  those  who  did  not  pay 
taxes  was  resented  with  considerable  heat.  The  poor 
laboring  man  and  artisan  did  not  relish  being  called  an 
''Arab"  or  a  "vagabond,"  and  the  virtues  of  the  working 
people  were  extolled  at  great  length.  It  was  pointed  out 
how  valuable  they  were  in  time  of  national  peril.  The 
vision  of  impecunious  war  veterans  was  conjured  up,  and 
the  duty  the  state  owed  the  helpless  worker  was  much 
stressed.  The  poor  man  feared  exploitation  by  the 
propertied  class.  A  vast  amount  of  oratory  was 
expended  on  the  topic  of  natural  right^  and  the  revolu- 

^  A  typical  aristocrat  spoke  thus:  "But,  Sir,  what  does  the  delegate 
propose?  To  place  the  vicious  vagrant,  the  wandering  Arabs,  the 
Tartar  hordes  of  our  large  cities  on  a  level  with  the  virtuous  and  good 
man?  ....  These  Arabs  steeped  in  crime  and  in  vice,  to  be  placed 
on  a  level  with  the  industrious  population  is  insulting  and  degrading  to 

the  community I  hold  up  my  hands  against  a  proceeding  which 

confers  on  the  idle,  vicious,  degraded  vagabond  a  right  at  the  expense  of 
the  poor  and  industrious  portion  of  this  commonwealth." — Penn.  Conv., 
1837,  Debates,  II,  487. 

'  The  temptation  to  quote  this  ebullition  as  a  curiosity  cannot  be 
overcome:  "By  suffrage  I  apprehend  is  meant,  in  its  most  enlarged 
sense,  that  expression  of  will  by  which  man  signifies  his  disposition  to 
enter  into  the  social  compact — and  to  institute  government.    It  is  by 


I 


The  End  of  Properly  Tests  93 

tionary  philosophy,  but  the  upshot  was  the  retention 
of  the  old  suffrage  clause  requiring  that  the  voter  must 
have  paid  a  state  or  county  tax.  In  view  of  the  fact 
that  a  tax  as  low  as  ten  or  twenty-five  cents  might  be 
imposed  to  satisfy  the  requirement,  there  was  not  ■ 
much  to  object  to  except  the  principle.  The  vote  on 
the  taxpaying  requirement  was  very  close,  fifty-five  to  j 
fifty- two,  and  that  shows  how  the  debate  happened  to 
be  so  prolonged. 

It  may  be  said  in  passing,  just  as  a  reminder  of  some 
of  the  other  problems  that  suffrage  clauses  usually  dealt 
with,  that  this  constitution  failed  to  exclude  any  groups, 
such  as  paupers,  criminals,  students,  etc.  The  question 
of  paupers  had  been  brought  up,  but  of  course  the  tax- 
paying  qualification  was  presumed  to  cover  their  case. 
The  residence  requirement  was  placed  at  one  year  in  the 
state  and  ten  days  in  the  voting  precinct. 

In  Rhode  Island  the  demand  for  abolition  of  property  j 
qualifications  for  suffrage  ultimately  led  to  a  small-sized 
revolution.  This  state  has  been  mentioned  several  times 
as  being  particularly  well  fortified  against  the  progressive 
movements  of  the  day.  But  it  seems  that  the  longer 
the  conservatives  succeeded  in  staving  off  the  day  of 
reckoning  the  harder  they  were  destined  to  fall.  Only 
a  complete  surrender  to  the  popular  demands  saved 


that  also  that  he  manifests  his  assent  or  dissent  to  the  measures  of  that 
government.  It  is  evidently  then  a  natural  and  inherent  right,  and  not 
at  any  time  surrendered;  for  by  the  exercise  of  it  alone,  can  a  man  pass 
from  a  state  of  nature  into  the  social  compact.  If  a  natural  right  then, 
so  precious  is  its  nature,  that  the  humblest  man  in  the  community  cannot 
be  divested  of  it.  Forfeited  it  may  be  by  crime,  and  other  circumstances, 
but  taken  from  him  never  without  violence  and  injustice,"  How  se- 
renely he  passes  over  the  case  of  minors  twenty  years  of  age,  and  women! 


94  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

\  bloodshed,  and  if  the  people  of  Rhode  Island  did  have  to 
^  wait  until  1843  ^^  get  the  franchise  without  impediments, 
it  is  worth  noting  that  the  step  from  a  real  estate  to  no 
kind  of  property  qualification  was  made  in  about  as  quick 
time  as  it  took  to  write  it  down.  There  was  no  dillydally- 
ing through  the  various  stages  of  personal-property  alter- 
natives. The  disorder  resulting  in  this  sudden  change  is 
.known  to  history  as  the  Dorr  Rebellion  of  1841. 

Rhode  Island  had  never  provided  herself  with  a 
modern  constitution  such  as  the  other  states  possessed. 
Rhode  Island  always  seemed  to  take  pride  in  being 
eccentric,  and  it  pleased  her  public  men  to  say  that  their 
state  was  operating  satisfactorily  under  the  ancient 
charter  granted  by  Charles  II  in  1663.  It  seems  that  this 
antiquity  was  supposed  to  lend  a  certain  prestige  to 
the  state  which  the  nineteenth-century  generation  of 
Democrats  failed  to  appreciate.  The  charter  provided 
a  property  in  real  estate  qualification  for  the  suffrage. 
It  did  not  excite  much  opposition  until  the  Jeffersonian 
movement  was  at  its  height.  For  a  time  the  Republicans 
or  Antifederalists  were  in  power,  and  steps  were  taken 
looking  toward  a  cutting  down  of  the  suffrage  qualifica- 
tion.^ Had  those  who  worked  for  such  a  move  been 
successful,  in  all  probability  a  taxpaying  alternative 
would  have  been  provided  and  Rhode  Island  would  have 
illustrated  the  same  gradual  tendency  that  was  observ- 
able in  other  states.  But  the  remnant  of  Federalists 
got  back  in  power  before  the  step  was  accomplished, 
and  nothing  was  done.    This  happened  in  181 1. 

Rhode  Island  naturally  became  a  manufacturing 
state  and  thousands  of  workers  flocked  into  the  cities. 

^  J.  Frieze,  Concise  History  of  Suffrage  in  Rhode  Island,  p.  17. 


The  End  of  Property  Tests  95 

They  formed  a  malcontent  group  that  was  continually 
grumbling  against  repression;  but  the  property  interests 
were  firmly  intrenched  back  of  their  hoary  charter,  and 
the  democratic  element  could  not  pry  its  way  into  the 
"closed  corporation."  Suffrage  was  being  extended  in 
all  the  states  surrounding  them,  as  has  been  seen.  And 
there  was  no  lack  of  agitation  in  Rhode  Island  either. 
Scarcely  ten  years  elapsed  from  the  time  of  the  former 
effort  when  in  the  early  twenties  a  proposition  for  a  new 
constitution  was  put  before  the  electorate  and  failed  of 
adoption.'  This  was  quite  to  be  expected,  for  those  who 
exercised  the  franchise  were  satisfied,  and  the  malcontent 
group  was  not  able  yet  to  awe  them.  The  governing 
class  here  was  particularly  arrogant  and  supercilious. 

In  1829  bold  demands  were  made  upon  the  assembly 
to  make  some  move  toward  establishing  a  more  demo- 
cratic government.^  But  these  demands  only  provoked 
the  most  amazing  declarations  against  democratic 
principles.  One  would  have  thought  that  this  assembly 
had  never  heard  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  or 
the  United  States  of  America,  and  that  King  Charles 
had  graciously  blessed  them  with  his  charter,  perhaps 
the  year  before.  Democracy  was  roundly  denounced 
and  the  freehold  qualification  stoutly  supported. 

It  was  about  this  time  that  one  Thomas  Dorr 
appeared  upon  the  scene.  He  was  a  man  of  education 
and  good  family  and  seemed  ready  to  give  his  entire 
energy  to  the  cause  of  broader  suffrage.  He  assumed 
the  leadership  of  suffrage  advocates  and  in  May,  1833, 
organized  a  party  for  the  purpose  of  carr3dng  on  a 

*  McMaster,  History  of  the  People  of  the  United  States,  VII,  165. 
^Ibid.yp.  166. 


g6  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

systematic  propaganda  for  a  taxpaying  suffrage  clause/ 
This  is  significant.  Dorr  and  his  followers  did  not  want 
full  suffrage.  What  they  wanted  at  this  time  was  a 
taxpaying  qualification  only.  The  party  consisted  of 
mechanics  and  workingmen  for  the  most  part,  that  is, 
the  best  of  these,  the  sort  who  paid  some  taxes  but  did 
not  own  real  estate.  They  held  regular  meetings  in  the 
town  house  at  Providence  and  discussed  the  suffrage 
question.  The  occasions  were  not  without  picturesque 
interest,  for  the  speakers  and  prominent  leaders,  wishing 
to  emphasize  the  plebeian  character  of  the  organization, 
always  appeared  in  rough  clothing  and  assumed  rude 
manners.  They  wrote  messages  to  state  and  national 
dignitaries  and  would  sign  their  names:  "John  Jones, 
carpenter";  "William  Smith,  shoemaker";  "George 
Clark,  blacksmith,"  etc.  They  were  as  proud  of  being 
plebes  as  the  aristocrats  were  of  being  proteges  of  the 
beloved  King  Charles. 

These  activities  resulted  in  a  constitutional  conven- 
tion being  called  by  the  assembly  in  1834.  But  delegates 
were  to  have  no  pay,  which  shut  out  the  poor  man  even 
if  he  could  have  been  elected,  and  the  whole  affair  was^ 
looked  upon  as  a  sop  to  Cerberus  rather  than  an  honest 
attempt  to  satisfy  popular  clamor.  The  convention  was 
a  farce,  and  after  a  few  desultory  meetings  broke  up 
without  accomplishing  anything.  Dorr's  organization 
of  workingmen  seems  to  have  become  discouraged,  and 
in  1837  the  cause  of  suffrage  was  at  a  very  low  ebb,  for 
the  party  then  died  out.^ 

However,  during  the  log-cabin,  hard-cider  campaign 
of   1840  the  democratic  spirit  in  Rhode  Island  was 

^  Frieze,  op.  cit.,  p.  23.  ^  Ibid.,  p.  26. 


The  End  of  Property  Tests  97 

revived,  and  some  interested  persons  issued  a  pamphlet 
entitled  An  Address  to  the  Citizens  of  Rhode  Island  Who 
Are  Denied  the  Right  of  Suffrage.  This  pamphlet 
suggested  the  calling  of  another  constitutional  con- 
vention. The  Rhode  Island  Suffrage  Association  was 
formed  by  Thomas  Dorr  and  issued  as  its  publicity 
organ  the  New  Age.  It  is  noteworthy  that  this  Suffrage 
Association  was  not  in  favor  of  a  liberal  program  even 
for  its  own  time.  It  opposed  suffrage  for  naturalized 
citizens,  it  opposed  negro  suffrage,  and  it  wanted  a 
taxpaying  requirement.  But  it  had  started  something 
that  it  was  not  able  to  stop. 

The  assembly  remembered  the  success  with  which  it 
had  met  the  situation  in  1834  and  offered  to  call  another 
convention.  But  the  democrats  were  not  to  be  fooled 
a  second  time  and  said  that  they  would  deal  with  the 
situation  without  any  help  from  the  assembly.  The 
movement  was  carried  on  through  the  winter  of  1840-41 
with  great  enthusiasm.  The  properly  constituted  au- 
thorities were  completely  ignored,  and  the  movement 
rapidly  assumed  a  revolutionary  aspect. 

In  April,  1841,  a  huge  mass  meeting  was  held  in 
Providence  to  start  the  machinery  for  calling  a  consti- 
tutional convention.  The  meeting  was  a  great  success. 
Such  sentiments  as  these  expressed  the  dominant 
thought:  *' Worth  Makes  the  Man,  but  Sand  and  Gravel 
Make  the  Voter";  '^ Virtue,  Patriotism,  and  Intelligence 
vs.  $134.00  Worth  of  Dirt."  On  the  whole  it  was  an 
ominous  demonstration.^  The  assembly  was  alarmed 
and  promised  to  call  a  legitimate  convention  that  would 
represent  the  people  fairly.     But  the  leaders  of  the 

^  McMaster,  op.  ciL,  VII,  168. 


98  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

revolutionary  movement  had  no  more  faith  in  the 
assembly.  Of  course  the  revolutionists  had  no  legal 
right  whatever  to  provide  for  a  constitutional  convention, 
and  everything  they  did  was  entirely  extra-legal. 

They  called  a  convention,  however,  which  was  known 
as  the  '' People's  Convention,"  and  this  convention  drew 
up  what  they  called  a  "People's  Constitution."  The 
assembly,  hoping  to  forestall  trouble,  also  called  a  con- 
vention which  had  a  legal  status. 

These  conventions  assembled  about  the  same  time, 
in  the  fall  of  1841.  Many  of  the  more  conservative  men 
in  Dorr's  party  wanted  to  wait  and  see  what  the  legiti- 
mate convention  would  do.  But  they  were  not  able  to 
stem  the  impetuous  determination  of  the  revolutionists, 
who  offered  their  People's  Constitution  to  the  electorate 
while  the  legitimate  convention  was  having  a  recess.  It 
was  approved  by  an  overwhelming  majority  at  the  polls. 
This  constitution  embraced  a  much  more  liberal  program 
than  had  at  first  been  intended.  Every  white  male 
citizen  of  the  United  States  was  to  have  the  franchise 
after  a  residence  of  one  year  in  the  state  and  six  months 
in  the  town. 

The  legitimate  convention  hastened  to  reassemble 

\    \  and  promptly  drew  up  a  constitution,  known  as  the 

/  "Landholder's   Constitution,"   which  was   surprisingly 

liberal.     It  was  provided  that  every  white  male  native 

^  (  citizen  of  the  United  States  could  vote  if  he  possessed  one 

'^    hundred  and  thirty-four  dollars'  worth  of  property  and 
\had  lived  in  the  state  one  year.     If  he  had  lived  in  the 

V I  state  two  years  the  property  requirement  was  not  to 

\apply.     Foreigners  must  have  lived  in  the  state  three 

years  after  naturalization  and  in  any  event  satisfy  the 


The  End  of  Property  Tests  99 

property  requirement.  This  was  certainly  liberal  enough 
to  have  caused  the  end  of  the  revolution.  There  is  no 
doubt  at  all  that  the  extra  year  of  residence  would  soon 
have  been  taken  off,  and  the  disabilities  against  foreigners 
ought  not  to  have  offended  the  original  suffrage  leaders, 
for  they  favored  such  measures  themselves.  But  Dorr 
and  his  crowd  were  angry.  They  did  not  want  anybody 
to  spoil  their  revolution,  and  as  a  result  of  their  agitation 
the  Landholder's  Constitution  was  defeated  on  March  i, 
1842.  The  suffrage  leaders  had  refused  to  accept  the 
equivalent  of  their  own  program  when  it  came  through 
a  legitimate  channel. 

Dorr  now  declared  that  the  People's  Constitution  was 
legally  in  force  and  proposed  to  set  up  a  government 
under  that  constitution.  Of  course  such  a  proceeding 
was  absolutely  illegal,  but  a  government  was  organized 
nevertheless.  The  legitimate  government  was  very  slow 
to  oppose  any  of  Dorr's  activities.  He  had  been  elected 
governor  under  the  People's  Constitution  and  pretended 
to  act  as  governor.  On  May  18  he  undertook  to  seize 
the  arsenal  as  a  first  step  in  his  warlike  program  of 
ousting  the  legitimate  government  and  establishing  his 
own.  He  had  a  goodly  following  and  marched  up  to  the 
arsenal  boldly  enough.  He  ordered  the  defenders  to 
surrender,  which  they  refused  to  do.  He  had  brought 
an  old  cannon  with  him  and  now  ordered  the  men  to 
shoot  it.  But,  as  has  been  well  said,  ''The  men  who 
followed  Mr.  Dorr  to  the  field,  it  appeared,  had  not  gone 
there  to  fight,  but  to  witness  the  fulfilment  of  his  pre- 
diction that  the  arsenal  would  be  surrendered  without 
firing  a  gun."^     He  tried  to  fire  the  cannon  himself,  but 

^  Frieze,  op.  cit.,  p.  81. 


loo  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

it  would  not  go  off.  The  attack  was  then  given  up  for  the 
time  being.  The  government  treated  the  affair  with 
great  indulgence.  Dorr  was  permitted  to  escape  from 
the  state,  but  a  month  later  he  returned  and  issued 
various  proclamations  as  governor  of  Rhode  Island, 
calling  the  people  to  arms.  The  legitimate  assembly  now 
prepared  in  earnest  to  put  an  end  to  his  nonsense.  On 
June  25  the  city  was  under  martial  law  and  a  considerable 
force  was  under  arms.  They  were  well  organized  and 
proceeded  to  surround  Dorr  and  his  force. 

On  the  evening  of  the  twenty-seventh  Dorr  unex- 
pectedly fled,  deserting  his  followers  and  leaving  a  note 
saying  that  evidently  those  who  voted  for  the  People's 
Constitution  were  not  willing  to  fight  for  it.  He  advised 
his  followers  to  disperse.  This  was  the  end  of  the  Dorr 
Rebellion.  Only  one  man  had  been  killed  in  the  whole 
affray,  and  that  happened  in  a  disorderly  mob.  Dorr 
was  later  captured,  tried,  sentenced  to  life  imprisonment, 
and  the  next  year  set  at  liberty  by  the  legislature  upon 
which  he  had  made  war. 

In  the  meantime  a  constitutional  convention  had 
been  called,  the  delegates  to  which  were  to  be  elected  by 
native  males  who  had  lived  in  the  state  three  years. 
This  provision  was  noticeable  for  not  discriminating 
against  negroes.  It  is  quite  evident  that  at  last  the 
assembly  had  come  to  a  point  where  it  was  willing  to 
go  to  almost  any  limits  to  satisfy  the  popular  clamor. 
The  Dorr  Rebellion  is  a  landmark.  It  was  by  far  the 
biggest,  most  dramatic,  and  most  determined  attack 
upon  property  qualifications  that  had  ever  occurred,  and 
it  was  practically  the  last  struggle  that  was  necessary  to 
break  the  bold  of  property  qualifications  for  good,    The 


The  End  of  Property  Tz^is  -tci 

only  incident  in  the  history  of  suffrage  in  the  United 
States  that  can  eclipse  this  in  importance  is  the  passage     ., 
of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment. 

The  Dorr  Rebellion  had  really  assumed  national^ 
significance  and  was  supported  by  Democrats  all  over  \  ^ 
the  United  States.  The  president  had  been  asked  to' 
support  the  legitimate  government  with  federal  troops, 
but  public  sentiment  restrained  him  until  the  last 
moment.  There  is  no  doubt  that  the  movement  had 
the  full,  whole-hearted  sympathy  of  the  entire  nation. 
If  Dorr  had  only  accepted  the  advances  of  the  legitimate 
government  in  Rhode  Island  and  had  not  clung  to  his 
foolish,  illegal  project  after  the  real  aim  had  been 
accomplished,  the  incident  would  not  suffer  the  oppro- 
brium with  which  it  must  now  be  stigmatized.  The 
Rebellion  had  collapsed  for  want  of  a  real  issue,  but  the 
leaders  were  too  selfish  to  acknowledge  the  fact. 

The  modern  constitution  which  was  the  ultimate 
outcome  of  this  trouble  was  not  put  in  force  until  1843, 
and  it  embodied  some  unusual  alternatives.  Native 
citizens  of  the  United  States  who  had  paid  a  tax  of  not 
less  than  one  dollar  or  had  done  military  service  could 
vote  after  satisfying  a  two-year-residence  requirement. 
If  a  man  owned  one  hundred  and  thirty-four  dollars' 
worth  of  property,  or  property  yielding  seven  dollars 
annual  income,  he  could  vote  after  living  in  the  state 
one  year.  The  taxpaying  requirement  amounted  to 
nothing  but  a  registry  tax  of  one  dollar,  but  to  the 
conservative  element  it  was  only  a  slight  measure  of 
consolation.  It  is  to  be  noted  that  naturalized  citizens"A4 
could  not  escape  the  property  test  and  that  there  was  / 
no  discrimination  against  negroes.    This  constitution 


'•iojaf';  >•:.;  ^''.SuSiiige' j^  the  United  States 

was  not  as  liberal  as  the  so-called  Landholder's  Constitu- 
tion that  had  been  repudiated  by  the  suffrage  advocates, 
but  they  were  not  disturbed  over  the  matter.  A  major- 
ity of  the  population  was  quite  ready  to  put  disabilities 
upon  the  foreigner,  and  the  one-dollar  tax  was  not 
particularly  offensive. 

^  Indians  were  excluded  from  the  suffrage,  as  were  also 
sailors,  soldiers,  the  insane,  and  paupers;  infamous 
crimes,  bribery  in  particular,  were  to  be  cause  for  ex- 
clusion. On  the  whole  this  constitution  had  a  very 
comprehensive  suffrage  clause. 

Another  little  state  of  the  North  Atlantic  seaboard 
group  provided  herself  with  a  new  constitution  in  1844, 
in  which  the  property  qualification  was  left  out.  New 
Jersey  had  a  fifty-pound  property  requirement  in  her 
former  constitution,  but  in  this  one  it  is  gone,  and  there 
is  not  even  a  taxpaying  test  left  in  memory  of  it.     White 

/  male  citizens  of  the  United  States,  born  or  naturalized, 
who  lived  one  year  in  the  state  and  five  months  in  the 
county  were  enfranchised.  Soldiers  and  sailors,  the 
insane,  and  paupers  were  excluded,  and  the  commission 
of  an  infamous  crime  or  bribery  was  cause  for  disfran- 

Jchisement. 

An  attempt  had  been  made  in  convention  to  put 
special  disability  on  the  foreigners.  A  measure  was 
proposed  which  would  oblige  naturalized  citizens  to 
reside  in  the  state  one  year  after  naturalization  before 
they  could  vote,  but  it  was  defeated  thirty-five  to 
fourteen.^  Foreigners  in  the  industrial  centers  along  the 
North  Atlantic  coast  were  making  themselves  particu- 
larly obnoxious.  Especially  was  this  true  of  the  illiterate 
^  N.J.  Conv.,  1844,  Journal,  p.  97. 


The  End  of  Property  Tests  103 

Irishman.  An  educational  test  was  proposed  for  his 
benefit,  but  unfortunately  it  was  found  to  embrace  too 
many  native  citizens.  The  proposal  was  that  no  one 
should  vote  unless  he  could  read  the  English  language, 
but  it  was  overwhelmingly  defeated.  The  activity  of 
foreigners  in  election  had  always  exasperated  the  New 
Englanders  and  the  conservatives  of  New  York  and 
Pennsylvania.  But  when  it  came  to  the  point  of 
deliberately  excluding  the  naturalized  citizen  from  the 
polls  the  American  sense  of  democracy  and  justice  could 
not  countenance  any  such  move.  There  was  a  great  deal 
of  bluster  and  denunciation  of  foreigners,  but  con- 
ventions usually  stopped  short  of  penalizing  them  after 
they  were  naturalized. 

The  following  year  Louisiana  was  also  wrestling 
with  the  foreigner  problem.  Some  proposed  to  put 
the  restrictions  relatively  high,  suggesting  a  residence 
period  of  four  years  after  naturalization.  There  were 
various  types  of  foreigners  that  caused  trouble,  and 
Louisiana  had  maintained  two  institutions  with  which 
all  foreigners  were  not  in  sympathy.  The  first  of  these 
was  slavery — ^most  foreigners  discountenanced  slavery 
with  great  firmness.  The  other  was  the  Roman  Law. 
Louisiana  is  the  only  state  in  the  Union  which  adopted 
the  Roman  Civil  Law  instead  of  the  common-law  system, 
and  many  statesmen  were  very  jealous  of  the  institution 
and  feared  to  intrust  its  support  to  foreigners  who  might 
not  be  in  sympathy  with  it.  It  was  said  on  the  floor  of 
the  convention  that  certain  foreigners  came  to  this 
country  because  they  were  suppressed  and  suffered 
greatly  from  monarchical  institutions  in  Europe.  These 
were  inclined  to  treat  the  liberal  institutions  here  with 


I04  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

great  license,  others  were  offended  at  slavery,  and  others 
were  not  familiar  with  the  peculiar  legal  institutions. 
All  of  them,  it  was  said,  needed  a  long  term  of  probation.' 
Most  of  the  conservatives  who  really  wanted  a 
property  or  taxpaying  test,  when  they  saw  that  there 
was  no  hope  of  securing  either,  turned  their  attention  to 
the  long-residence  clause  and  gave  it  their  hearty  support. 
Early  in  the  debate  on  suffrage  various  periods  of 
residence  were  suggested  for  different  classes.  The  man 
with  property  was  to  satisfy  a  test  of  only  one  year,  he 
who  paid  taxes  two  years,  and  all  others  three  years.  It 
merely  illustrates  the  resourcefulness  of  the  property 
owners  in  seeking  even  a  vestige  of  their  former  privileges. 
However,  a  great  deal  of  sentimental  argument  was 
invoked  against  the  high  residence  qualification  for  for- 
eigners. Many  references  were  made  to  the  nobility  of 
Lafayette  and  the  generosity  of  the  French  during  the 
American  Revolution.  They  seemed  perfectly  willing 
to  ignore  less  pleasant  incidents  in  the  relations  of  this 
country  with  France. 

But  all  the  talk  against  foreigners  came  to  nothing, 
/As  was  usually  the  case,  and  the  high  residence  require- 
ment of  two  years  in  the  state  and  one  in  the  parish  was 
imposed  upon  all.  There  was  no  property  or  tax 
requirement.  Only  soldiers  and  sailors  were  excluded 
specifically,  and  penitentiary  offenses  were  declared 
cause  for  disfranchisement.  Louisiana  was  one  of  the 
last  states  to  give  up  the  conservative  restrictions,  and 

^  It  may  have  been  far-fetched  to  keep  a  man  from  voting  because 
he  was  accustomed  to  the  common  law  instead  of  the  Roman  Law. 
Most  laymen  and  a  great  many  lawyers  do  not  know  the  difference. 
But  the  argument  was  used  nevertheless,  even  as  regarded  emigrants 
from  other  states,  not  foreigners. 


The  End  of  Property  Tests  ic 


J 


the  adoption  of  its  liberal  constitution  in  1845  is  a  sig- 
nificant turning-point  in  the  development  of  suffrage. 

However,  a  review  of  the  situation  at  this  date  will 
reveal  the  fact  that  an  uncompromising  property  quali-  ,  ^ 
fication  still  remained  in  two  states,  North  Carolina  and 
Virginia.^    These   states  were   the   stronghold   of   the 
southern  aristocracy,  if  there  was  such  a  thing,  and  the 
democratic  pioneers  who  opened  up  the  West  never  \f 
went  to  these  states,  and  neither  did  the  noisy  proletariat 
that  was  filling  up  the  busy  northern  states.     Being  free"^; 
of  these  two  elements,  Virginia  had  been  able  to  with- 
stand the  democratic  tendencies,  but  in  1850  a  constitu- 
tional convention  eliminated  the  property  qualification 
without  even  leaving  a  taxpaying  requirement. 

The  original  committee  report  which  was  finally 
adopted  admitted  all  white  male  citizens  of  the  United 
States  to  the  polls.  A  feeble  attempt  was  made  to 
introduce  a  taxpaying  qualification,  but  it  met  with  no 
success.  There  was  more  evidence  of  a  desire  to  use  the 
suffrage  machinery  as  a  club  to  force  men  to  pay  their 
legitimate  taxes.     A  move  was  made  designed  to  exclude 

"  A  great  many  histories,  books  on  political  institutions,  magazine 
articles,  and  the  cyclopedias  give  summaries  of  the  early  sujffrage  quali- 
fications and  the  dates  when  they  were  altered.  The  evidence  of  these 
writings  frequently  seems  to  conflict,  and  sometimes  it  is  actually  wrong, 
but  there  is  some  confusion  as  to  what,  for  instance,  a  property  test  is. 
For  example,  a  property  qualification  existed  in  Rhode  Island  after  1843, 
but  there  was  an  alternative  by  the  side  of  it.  Under  certain  circum- 
stances one  need  not  satisfy  the  property  test.  Hence  it  is  decidedly 
misleading  to  say  that  a  property  test  existed  there — it  did,  but  it 
amounted  to  little.  The  same  situation  existed  in  Louisiana  between 
181 2  and  1844.  It  was  the  taxpaying  qualification  only  that  was  sig 
nificant.  So  in  this  work,  when  it  is  said  that  a  property  test  applied, 
the  implication  is  that  there  was  no  alternative.  When  an  alternative 
appears,  it  is  the  alternative  that  is  significant  and  not  the  property  test. 


•f 


■:o6  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

from  the  polls  all  who  were  returned  as  delinquent. 
Quite  a  number  of  resolutions  were  presented  with  this 
in  view.  It  exhibits  a  rather  unfortunate  tendency  to 
warp  the  suffrage  laws  away  from  their  proper  function. 
Machinery  for  the  collection  of  delinquent  taxes  ought 
to  be  adequate  without  exploiting  the  suffrage  clause. 
The  implication  is  conveyed  that  if  a  man  be  willing  to 
forego  his  vote  he  may  neglect  to  pay  his  taxes. 

This  convention  interested  itself  with  the  foreigner 
problem.  There  was  no  thought  of  giving  the  franchise 
to  unnaturalized  foreigners,  but  the  committee  was 
instructed  to  consider  the  advisability  of  imposing  special 
disabilities  upon  those  who  had  become  naturalized, 
such  as  extra  years  of  residence,  or  the  taking  of  special 
oaths.  The  convention  favored  the  application  of  a 
special  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  state  of  Virginia.  No 
higher  residence  requirement  was  exacted,  but  two  years 
in  the  state  was  demanded  of  all.  The  usual  disabilities 
were  also  put  on  soldiers,  sailors,  the  insane,  and 
criminals. 
J  North  Carolina  has  the  distinction  of  being  the  last 
I  state  in  the  Union  to  abandon  the  unmitigated  property 
Ltest.  It  was  done  in  1856.  Previous  to  this  time  one 
must  have  owned  property  in  order  to  vote  in  North 
Carolina.  A  taxpaying  requirement  was  put  in  as  a 
substitute.^  The  Dorr  Rebellion  marked  the  last  real 
struggle  against  property  privilege.  There  was  no 
vigorous  fight  put  up  in  either  Virginia  or  North  Carolina. 
From  this  time  on  property  tests  were  a  thing  of  the  past 

^  Taxpaying  qualifications,  since  the  very  early  constitutions  were 
written,  do  not  name  the  amount  but  are  simply  stated  in  such  terms  as, 
"Shall  have  paid  public  taxes,"  or,  "Shall  have  paid  a  state  or  county 
tax." 


The  End  of  Property  Tests  107 

in  the  United  States.  They  had  clung  tenaciously  even 
past  the  halfway  mark  in  the  nineteenth  century,  and 
that  fact  itself  is  really  surprising.  It  is  also  worthy  of  ; 
note  that  the  property  test  was  never  found  farther  west  ^ 
than  Tennessee,  that  being  the  only  state  outside  the 
original  thirteen  where  it  was  ever  introduced.  The 
taxpaying  qualifications  invaded  some  of  the  other 
states,  but  the  property  test  without  an  alternative  was 
never  able  to  conquer  new  lands,  with  the  exception  of 
Tennessee,  and  required  the  greatest  efforts  of  the  lead- 
ing statesmen  of  the  country  to  make  it  possible  to  hang 
on  so  long  in  the  original  states. 

The  end  of  even  taxpaying  qualifications  seemed  to  be  ^ 
in  sight.    They  were  to  be  found  in  only  seven  states,    ./ 
and  even  in  those  states  they  were  so  low  as  not  to  excite 
much  opposition.     The  tax  requirement  had  come  to  be  • 
looked  upon  merely  as  a  registration  fee,  and  in  later     '^^- 
constitutions  it  was  treated  as  such.     At  other  times 
one  was  not  allowed  to  vote  unless  he  had  paid  all  taxes 
assessed  against  him,  including  the  poll  tax,  and  a  poll 
tax  was  assessed  on  every  man.     Obviously  such  a 
requirement  cannot  be  looked  upon  as  a  taxpaying 
requirement.     The  levy  of  a  poll  tax  has  nothing  to  do 
with  suffrage,  and  it  is  unscientific  legislation  and  poor 
political  theory  to  tie  it  up  with  suffrage.     It  is  a  serious 
reflection  upon  the  administration  of  law  in  a  state  if  the 
poll  tax  cannot  stand  without  being  bolstered  up  with 
the  suffrage  clause. 

But  to  return  to  the  seven  states.'     Connecticut  i  # 
abolished  her  taxpaying  requirement,  which  had  been 

^  Connecticut,  Delaware,  Massachusetts,  North  Carolina,  Ohio, 
Pennsylvania,  and  Rhode  Island. 


io8  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

,    introduced  in  memory  of  the  property  qualification  in 

N  1818,  by  means  of  a  constitutional  amendment  in  1845/ 

However,   the  lawmakers  clung  to   their  pious  wish, 

which  harmed  nobody,  and  every  voter  must  needs 

"sustain  a  good  moral  character.'' 

C'''  Ohio  dropped  her  tax  requirement  in  her  new  consti- 
tution of  1 85 1,  and  scarcely  anyone  paid  any  attention 
to  its  going.  One  scans  the  pages  of  the  convention 
debates  in  vain  to  find  any  serious  argument  about  it. 
The  free  negro  was  exciting  trouble  in  Ohio  at  this  time, 
and  that  subject  received  a  great  deal  of  attention. 
However,  the  situation  was  strained.  Advocates  of 
negro  suffrage  had  much  difficulty  in  getting  their  pe- 
titions accepted.  Even  petitions  advocating  the  ex- 
pulsion of  all  free  negroes  from  the  state  had  a  better 
reception.  The  anti-negro  element  was  at  white  heat, 
and  it  was  really  quite  impossible  to  debate  the  question 
calmly.  It  has  been  intimated  before  that  the  free- 
negro  question  was  really  settled.  By  1850  opinion  had 
crystallized  and  there  was  in  effect  a  deadlock.  During 
1  a  scant  twenty  years  from  1820  to  1840  it  had  been 
possible  to  debate  the  free-negro  cause  dispassionately. 
/  But  from  1840  until  the  war  it  was  no  longer  possible. 
The  introduction  of  the  question  in  convention  merely 
-indicated  the  persistency  of  the  negro-suffrage  advocates. 
In  1853  ^  convention  was  held  in  Massachusetts  and 
the  taxpaying  qualification  came  in  for  thorough  debate. 
As  it  was  the  last  time  the  question  was  discussed  on  the 
basis  of  the  old  standards  it  may  be  worth  while  to  give 
the  arguments  some  attention,  although  not  much  that 
was  new  appeared.  The  history  of  suffrage  in  Massachu- 
setts had  been  t3rpical.  There  had  first  been  real  estate 
^  Compiled  Stat.  Conn.,  1845,  p.  49. 


The  End  of  Property  Tests  109 

qualification,  then  the  personalty  alternative,  then  the 
substitution  of  taxpaying,  and  now  even  that  was  nearly 
worn  out.  The  smallness  of  the  tax  was  much  dwelt 
upon.  As  it  was  only  a  dollar  and  a  half,  advocates 
thought  that  no  objection  should  be  made.  But  it  was 
pointed  out  that  whether  or  not  the  poor  man  could 
afford  that  small  sum,  or  ought  to  afford  it,  he  simply 
would  not.  It  would  seem  to  him  like  throwing  money 
away,  and  he  would  prefer  to  lose  his  vote.  This 
undoubtedly  was  true,  and  it  was  also  true  that  the 
conservatives  hoped  that  just  that  thing  would  happen. 
It  is  unnecessary  to  review  the  old  arguments.  *' All 
governments  derive  just  powers  from  the  consent  of  the 
governed.  Non-taxpayers  are  part  of  the  governed." 
^'Men  should  be  represented  in  government — not  their 
dollars."'  On  the  other  hand,  ''Representation  should 
only  go  with  taxation " ;  ''  Those  who  pay  for  supporting 
the  government  should  have  the  exclusive  right  to  control 
it."  All  these  and  other  arguments  were  of  course 
exploited.  And  the  never-failing  natural-rights  philos- 
opher was  also  present.^ 

^Mass.  Conv.,  1853,  Debates.  A  member  said  that  he  quoted 
Benjamin  Franklin  as  follows:  "You  require  that  a  man  shall  have 
sixty  dollars'  worth  of  property,  or  he  shall  not  vote.  Very  well,  take  an 
illustration.  Here  is  a  man  today  who  owns  a  jackass,  and  the  jackass 
is  worth  sixty  dollars.  Today  the  man  is  a  voter  and  he  goes  to  the  polls 
with  his  jackass  and  deposits  his  vote.  Tomorrow  the  jackass  dies. 
The  next  day  the  man  comes  to  vote  without  his  jackass  and  he  cannot 
vote  at  all.  Now  tell  me,  which  was  the  voter,  the  man  or  the  jackass  ?  " 
Fortunately,  some  one  informed  the  gentleman  that  he  was  quoting 
Tom  Paine  and  not  the  venerable  Franklin. 

» Mr.  Simonds  spoke  thus:  "You  have  no  right  to  deprive  him  of 
this  privilege.  And  I  ask  if  it  is  not  time  that  we  should  assert  this 
declaration  of  the  bill  of  rights,  that  this  is  a  right  which  belongs  to 
every  man — a  right  which  we  can  neither  give  nor  take  away  from  him  ?  " 


1^' 


^ 


no 


Suffrage  in  the  United  States 


^  s  I  I 


J    s 

1    a 

11 


I     . 

j2  ^  i 
E  I   i 


I  1 

■g   ^ 


.3        % 

I       I 
>      H 


3      ^ 


The  End  of  Property  Tests  iii 

A  strong  effort  was  made  to  introduce  a  new  sort  of 
compromise.  It  was  proposed  to  retain  the  taxpaying 
qualification  for  town  meetings.  Indeed  it  was  remark- 
able that  so  many  were  willing  to  grant  full  suffrage  for 
everything  except  town  elections.  They  seemed  not  to 
care  so  much  who  voted  for  president  and  governor,  but 
only  the  best  men  in  the  community  should  vote  for 
hogreeve.  It  is  a  striking  illustration  of  the  reverence 
and  jealousy  men  held  for  the  time-honored  town  meet- 
ings. In  the  rural  districts  it  was  the  most  important 
thing  in  their  lives. 

The  small-tax  requirement  hung  on,  however,  for 
ten  years  longer  and  finally  gave  way  in  1863.  North 
Carolina  abolished  her  requirement  in  1868.  That  left 
Delaware,  Pennsylvania,  and  Rhode  Island.  The  first 
of  these  did  not  give  it  up  until  1897,  and  it  still  holds  in 
the  other  two  states;  but  it  must  be  remarked  again  that 
any  kind  of  a  tax  requirement  connected  with  suffrage 
since  i860  has  been  practically  nothing  but  a  registry  fee, 
and  several  states  accomplish  the  same  end  by  requiring 
that  men  must  pay  their  poll  taxes  before  voting.  The 
old-fashioned  taxpaying  test  as  a  compromise  with 
property  qualifications  was  gone  before  the  Civil  War. 


CHAPTER  V 
ALIENS  AND  THE  SUFFRAGE 

So  far  as  the  suffrage  was  concerned,  the  fifteen  years 
preceding  the  Civil  War  were  chiefly  occupied  with  the 
foreigner  problem  in  new  aspects.  There  has  been  no 
period  in  the  history  of  this  country  that  has  been  entirely 
free  of  a  suffrage  issue.  Up  until  1820  radical  Demo- 
crats had  all  they  could  do  to  break  down  the  hold  of  the 
property  interests.  The  presence  of  foreigners  was  a 
disturbing  matter  and  occupied  attention  now  and  then, 
but  to  no  considerable  extent,  and  resentment  against 
foreigners  taking  part  in  elections  was  more  or  less 
spasmodic,  although  it  did  modify  the  trend  of  develop- 
pment,  as  has  been  indicated.  From  1820  to  1845  the 
I  foreigner  was  almost  lost  sight  of  in  the  suffrage  debates 
I  I  which  were  so  fully  occupied  with  the  free  negro  and  the 
j  few  property  tests  that  remained.  But  "the  foreigner 
?lproblem  was  growing  all  the  time.  Here  and  there  a 
reference  would  be  made  to  it  in  newspapers,  occasional 
acrimonious  comments  would  be  dropped  in  conventions, 
it  was  touched  upon  in  Congress,  and  farsighted  men 
could  easily  tell  that  it  would  not  be  many  years  before 
the  foreigner's  political  status  would  force  itself  as  an 
issue  upon  the  statesmen  of  the  day.  So  it  was  in  the 
later  forties  and  succeeding  years,  after  the  other  suffrage 
problems  had  been  laid  to  rest,  that  conventions  had  to 
deal  with  the  immigrant.  The  problem  did  not  stay 
before  the  public  eye  for  very  long,  and  it  never  was  as 


Aliens  and  the  Suffrage  113 

serious  as  many  people  thought  it  was  going  to  be.^ 
The  really  serious  problem  that  arose  during  this  period  ^ 
was  the  woman-suffrage  question.  This  problem  hardly 
got  a  fair  start  when  both  were  swallowed  up  in  the  Civil 
War.  The  woman-suffrage  issue  emerged  after  the  war, 
strong  and  pressing,  to  occupy  the  attention  of  the 
North.  The  South  had  to  deal  with  its  negroes.  Thus 
it  was  in  this  brief  period  before  the  war  that  the  for- 
eigner had  his  day  in  the  foreground,  and  some  attention 
must  be  given  to  the  questions  he  presented. 

A  novel  situation  had  arisen.     For  the  first  time  the 
alien  found  strong  champions;  for  the  first  time  he  was  \j 
really  wanted  in  certain  parts  of  the  country,  wanted  so  '  - 
badly  that  inducements  were  held  out  to  attract  him. 
Up  in  the  Great  Lakes  region — in  Michigan,  Indiana, 
Wisconsin,  Illinois,  and  Minnesota — there  were  vast, 
uncultivated  tracts  of  land  awaiting  exploitation.     Most 
of   these  states  had  not  been  organized  very  many 
years  and  they  were  eager  to  grow,  to  develop  their 
resources,  increase  their  population  and  their  wealth, 
gain   larger   representation   in   Congress,    and   become 
important  units  in  the  national  government.     What 
then  could  be  more  logical  than  to  offer  the  swarming    i 
immigrants  a  hand  in  the  government  if  they  would  only 
come  ?    And  a  hand  in  the  government  meant  the  right  - 
of  suffrage  even  before  they  were  naturalized. 

The  economic  interests  of  the  undeveloped  country 
certainly  demanded  the  presence  of  foreign  laborers,^ 
and  to  offer  them  the  elective  franchise  very  soon  after 
their  arrival  seemed  to  be  an  effective  way  of  attracting 
them.    Here  was  a  problem:  to  reconcile  this  economic 

*  Von  Hoist,  History  of  the  United  States,  II,  524. 


114  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

need  of  foreign  labor  with  the  native  American,  anti- 
CathoHc  prejudice  that  was  being  fanned. 
^  Immigration  was  particularly  heavy  during  1846-48 
and  the  immigrants  consisted  chiefly  of  Irish  and 
Germans.'  The  influx  of  the  Irish  is  said  to  have  been 
due  to  famine  in  Ireland,^  but  whatever  the  cause  they 
certainly  came  in  a  vast  army.  Most  of  the  immigrants 
tended  to  settle  in  the  big  industrial  centers  of  New  York, 
Massachusetts,  and  Pennsylvania,  but  the  call  to  the 
Great  Lakes  region  was  not  unheard,  especially  when  it 
told  of  political  privilege  and  opportunities  for  economic 
independence.  Germans  were  particularly  wanted. 
They  were  good  farmers,  thrifty  and  substantial  settlers. 
Most  of  the  immigrants  were  hopelessly  ignorant,  but 
illiteracy  did  not  have  much  to  do  with  one's  capacity  to 
grow  a  field  of  wheat. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  belligerent  Irish  had  been 
causing  trouble  for  some  time  in  the  East.  Their 
disorderly  conduct  was  indignantly  denounced  on  all 
sides.^  Illiterate  Irish  Catholic  hoodlums  promoting  a 
riot  at  the  polls  was  a  particularly  offensive  spectacle  to 
conservative  New  Englanders.  It  is  told  how  they 
beat  respectable  citizens,  insulted  public  dignitaries, 
fought  openly  with  the  police,  and  raised  havoc 
generally.'*    An  election  was  considered  an  occasion  for  a 

*  Von  Hoist,  History  of  the  United  States,  II,  523. 
'  G.  P.  Garrison,  Westward  Expansion,  p.  8. 

3  Niles  Register,  XL VIII  (1835),  289,  gives  an  account  of  a  riotous 
incident  and  ends  by  saying  that  "they  arrested  many  persons,  such  as 
Patrick  O'Rourke,  Tom  Sullivan,  Patrick  Mulooney,  Barney  McCann — 
the  police  office  was  full  of  them."  Many  quotations  from  the  news- 
papers are  given,  reciting  accounts  of  the  terrorism  on  the  part  of  these 
immigrants. 

*  Schouler,  History  of  the  United  States,  IV,  202. 


Aliens  and  the  Suffrage  115 

grand  uproar.     And,  what  was  most  alarming,  they  wereA 
building  up  a  vast  machine  to  be  controlled  by  shrewd,  /  -^ 
unscrupulous  politicians.     This  ignorant,  brutal,  vicious' 
element  lent  itself  admirably  to  the  activities  of  a  Tam- 
many Hall.     To  combat  the  menace  a  very  considerable 
number  of  people  were  ready  to  form  a  political  party, 
and  in  September,   1847,  a  convention  met  in  Phila-      / 
delphia.'     It  was  supposed  to  be  a  convention  of  the 
Native  American  party,  later  known  as  the  '' Know- 
No  things."     This    convention    recommended    Zachary 
Taylor  for  president,  although  he  was  not  formally  put 
in  nomination.     Their  principles  were  indicated  in  the 
party  name  they  assumed.     They  wanted  only  native     f 
Americans  to  participate  in  the  government  and  were 
particularly  bitter  against  Irish  Catholics.     However, 
the  members  of  this  party  were  extremely  reticent,  and 
there  is  not  as  much  information  at  hand  concerning 
them  as  could  be  desired.     They  were  called  "Know- 
Nothings"  because  when  questioned  it  was  their  habit 
to  answer  "I  know  nothing."    At  any  rate  the  opposi- 
tion to  foreigners  exercising  the  right  of  suffrage  reached 
its  highest  point  in  this  party,  which  maintained  an 
organization  until  the  Civil  War. 

Thus  the  situation  stood  in  the  later  forties,  the 
aliens  massing  themselves  in  the  East  but  meeting  bitter 
opposition,  gradually  shifting  westward  and  finding  a 
welcome  and  special  privilege  extended  to  them  in  the 
newer  states.  In  1846  a  constitutional  convention  in 
New  York  is  found  casting  opprobrium  upon  them. 
One  of  the  first  propositions  brought  forward  proposed  to 
abandon  the  universal  practice  of  permitting  the  suffrage 
right  to  depend  upon  a  law  of  Congress.     Practically 

*  T.  H.  McKee,  Party  Conventions, 


ii6  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

every  state  admitted  to  the  polls  citizens  ''born  or 
naturalized.''  Therefore  the  right  of  an  alien  to  vote 
was  distinctly  controlled  by  the  power  of  Congress  to 
pass  naturalization  laws.  The  idea  was  to  get  rid  of 
this  phrase  and  leave  the  state  free  to  name  the  exact 
period  of  time  an  alien  must  live  in  the  state  before  being 
permitted  to  vote.'  Of  course  it  was  intended  to  require 
a  much  longer  period  for  aliens  than  for  natives.  But 
this  move  did  not  meet  with  support. 

The  next  scheme  which  occurred  to  the  anti-alien 
group  was  to  establish  a  literacy  test,  and  this  is  the 
first  time  such  a  proposition  was  considered  with  any 
indication  of  possible  success.  The  illiteracy  of  the 
invading  Irishman  was  a  particularly  sore  point,  but 
naturally  the  great  problem  was  so  to  frame  a  literacy 
test  that  ignorant  Irishmen  would  be  ruled  out  and 
ignorant  natives  would  not.  The  entire  history  of  the 
literacy  test  down  to  the  present  day  has  been  charac- 
terized by  this  difficulty:  how  to  exempt  some  special 
favorites  from  a  perfectly  impartial  literacy  test.  The 
franchise  committee  reported  in  favor  of  a  clause  that 
would  require  every  voter  to  be  able  to  read  and  write 
English  after  1855.  A  minority  of  the  committee,  seek- 
ing to  exempt  their  special  favorites,  proposed  that  one 
who  paid  a  tax  should  be  relieved  of  the  literacy  test. 
But  it  seemed  to  be  impossible  to  frame  any  kind  of 
literacy  test  that  would  be  acceptable  to  any  considerable 
number  of  delegates.  All  sorts  of  compromises  were 
urged  concerning  chiefly  the  date  at  which  it  should 
apply.  First  it  was  suggested  that  all  bom  after  the 
new  constitution  went  into  force  should  come  under  it, 

^  N.Y.  Conv.,  1846,  Journal,  p.  89. 


Aliens  and  the  Suffrage  117 

and  those  living  at  the  time  being  should  never  be 
affected.     Then  the  year  1855  was  proposed  in  order  to 
get  another  vote  on  the  issue,  then  i860.     But  they  all 
failed.     The  illiterate  foreigner  was  heartily  dislikedTl 
but  the  convention  could  not  come  to  the  point  of  putting  \ 
special  disabilities  on  him,  once  he  became  a  citizen,  and  | 
they  were  not  willing  to  penalize  any  native  Americans 
for  the  sake  of  ruling  out  the  foreigners.     So  the  pro- 
gram of  exclusion  had  to  be  given  up. 

While  the  negro  question  is  presumably  disposed  of 
until  after  the  Civil  War  it  would  never  do  to  pass  by 
this  convention  without  a  mention  of  what  was  done 
there  on  behalf  of  the  negro.  A  strong  fight  was  made 
to  relieve  him  of  the  two-hundred-and-fifty-dollar 
property  requirement  under  which  he  was  laboring.^ 
Compromises  were  suggested — for  example,  let  it  not 
apply  to  negroes  coming  into  the  state  thereafter;  let  it 
not  apply  to  those  already  in  the  state  but  to  the  new- 
comers; let  it  not  apply  after  a  certain  date.  There 
were  numerous  alternatives,  but  nothing  could  move 
the  convention.  After  flatly  refusing  to  extend  the  fran- 
chise, by  a  vote  of  sixty-three  to  thirty-seven  it  acted 
upon  the  recommendation  of  the  franchise  committee, 
drew  up  a  suffrage  clause  for  negroes,  and  submitted  the 
question  to  a  popular  referendum.  The  clause  adopted 
by  the  convention  provided  that  negroes  must  satisfy 
a  three-year-residence  requirement,  own  two  hundred 
and  fifty  dollars'  worth  of  property,  and  pay  taxes. ^ 

^  Ibid.,  p.  1247. 

*  There  were  three  popular  referendums  on  negro  suffrage,  1846, 
1850,  and  1867,  at  all  of  which  equal  rights  for  the  negro  were  defeated. 
It  was  not  until  1874  that  the  negro-suffrage  clause  adopted  by  this 
convention  was  finally  abandoned. 


ii8  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

Elsewhere  in  the  East  constitutional  alterations  were 
going  on  too.  In  Maryland  a  convention  drew  up  a  new 
constitution  in  1850.  Much  apprehension  was  manifest 
concerning  the  treatment  that  was  to  be  awarded  the 
foreigner,  and  numerous  petitions  suggesting  literacy 
tests  and  long-residence  periods  testify  to  the  fact  that 
not  a  few  were  willing  to  impose  severe  restrictions  upon 
him.  But  nothing  radical  was  done,  and  the  suffrage 
clause  of  the  constitution  of  1851  admitted  all  free  white 
males  after  a  residence  of  one  year  in  the  state  and  six 
months  in  the  county. 

In  Connecticut,  on  the  other  hand,  a  constitutional 
amendment  was  passed  in  1855  prescribing  that  ability 
to  read  the  constitution  or  statutes  should  be  a  require- 
ment for  exercising  the  right  of  suffrage.^  There  is  no 
doubt  that  this  was  aimed  directly  at  the  foreigners, 
although  natives  must  have  come  under  it  also. 

In  Massachusetts  there  was  an  even  more  determined 
effort  to  get  rid  of  the  foreigner,  and  more  elaborate  steps 
were  taken  there  than  anywhere  else.  In  1857  an 
amendment  to  the  constitution  was  passed  requiring 
that  all  voters  must  be  able  to  read  the  constitution  and 
write  their  own  names.  And  in  order  to  pacify  a  certain 
portion  of  the  native  element  that  would  find  such  a  test 
prohibitive  it  was  not  to  apply  to  anyone  over  sixty  years 
of  age  or  to  anyone  who  already  exercised  the  franchise. 
Two  years  later  another  amendment  was  passed  requiring 
foreigners  to  remain  in  the  state  for  two  years  after 
naturalization  before  they  could  vote.  This  seems  to 
mark  the  highest  point  in  the  opposition  to  aliens,  and 
it  is  worth  noting  that  it  was  the  ignorant,  poverty- 

^  Gen.  Stat.  Conn.,  1888,  Art.  11. 


Aliens  and  the  Suffrage  119   / 

stricken,  famished,  unwashed  Irish  Catholic  rowdy 
whom  the  country  may  thank  for  bringing  forth  literacy 
tests.  They  were  applied  freely  to  the  negro  in  future 
years  and  today  are  being  used  on  general  principles, 
but  they  originated  practically  for  the  benefit  of  the 
Irishman. 

In  the  meantime  the  states  clustering  around  Lake 
Michigan  were  holding  out  the  hand  of  welcome  to  the 
foreigner.  Wisconsin  had  joined  the  Union  in  1848,  and 
her  constitution  permitted  aliens  to  vote  after  they  had 
declared  their  intention  to  become  citizens  of  the  United  j 
States.  Wisconsin  was  the  first  state  to  come  into  the 
Union  with  such  an  unusual  provision^  and  the  implica- 
tions were  not  at  once  appreciated.  It  will  be  recalled 
that  the  Naturalization  Law  of  the  United  States 
required  that  an  alien  should  live  in  the  country  five 
years  before  he  could  become  naturalized,  and  that  at 
least  two  years  before  the  date  of  his  naturalization  he 
must  file  a  statement  declaring  it  to  be  his  intention  to 
become  a  citizen  of  the  United  States.  The  fact  must  be 
fully  understood  that  the  filing  of  this  statement  in  no 
way  obligated  the  alien  to  do  anything.  He  might  file 
such  a  declaration  at  any  time  after  his  arrival  in  this 
country,  and  he  might  never  appear  again  to  complete 
his  naturalization.  Filing  the  declaration  is  not  a 
halfway  step  in  any  sense  of  the  word,  as  many  seemed 
to  believe.  The  alien  remains  an  alien  until  he  becomes  i^ 
a  fully  naturalized  citizen.  The  filing  of  a  declaration 
of  intention  is  only  a  simple  formahty  that  imposes  no 
obligation  and  confers  only  the  very  narrowly  circum- 
scribed right  to  seek  naturalization  after  the  five-year 
period  of  residence  is  completed.     The  alien  is  still  an 


120  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

alien  in  every  sense  of  the  word  until  he  is  naturalized, 
and  his  declaration  of  intention  does  not  make  him 
partially  naturalized.  Obviously  the  whole  purpose  of 
requiring  the  declaration  of  intention  at  all  is  to  have 
some  evidence  that  the  individual  is  not  acting  on  the 
spur  of  the  moment  or  from  thoughtless  motives,  but 
has  entertained  a  fixed  desire  for  at  least  two  years  to 
become  a  United  States  citizen. 

Men  who  favored  admitting  aliens  to  the  suffrage 
after  they  had  declared  their  intention  labored  under  all 
sorts  of  delusions.^  Some  believed  that  when  a  man  had 
declared  his  intention  he  was  half-naturalized  and  auto- 
matically became  a  full  citizen  two  years  later.  Others 
misunderstood  the  law  and  thought  that  an  alien  must 
live  in  the  country  two  years  before  he  could  declare  his 
intention.  Others  actually  seemed  to  think  that  declar- 
ing intention  was  equivalent  to  naturalization.  Of 
course  those  who  carried  the  liberal  suffrage  measures 
through  were  not  so  ill  informed  as  this,  but  many  who 
supported  them  were.  The  popular  mind  has  never 
looked  upon  the  alien  who  has  declared  his  intention  as 
quite  so  much  of  an  alien  as  the  one  who  has  not,  though 
strictly  speaking  their  status  is  exactly  the  same.  The 
one  merely  has  a  presumptive  right  to  change  his  status 
at  the  end  of  a  certain  period  if  he  wants  to. 

So  here  was  Wisconsin  admitting  the  subjects  of  the 
British  king  and  the  king  of  Prussia  to  the  ballot  box  to 
help  elect  a  president  of  the  United  States.  The  rest 
of  the  country  was  helpless.  The  federal  Constitution 
says  that  the  legislature  of  each  state  may  determine 
how  the  presidential  electors  shall  be  selected,  and  those 

^  Wis.  Conv.,  1846,  Journal,  p.  419. 


Aliens  and  the  Suffrage  121 

who  vote  for  congressmen  in  each  state  need  have  only ' 
the  qualifications  necessary  to  vote  for  the  members  of 
the  most  numerous  branch  of  the  state  legislature. 
Therefore  Wisconsin  was  free  to  permit  aliens  to  vote 
for  presidential  electors  and  congressmen  even  though 
they  might  be  alien  enemies.  Although  the  situation 
has  always  been  anomalous,  it  has  been  unquestionably 
constitutional.^  There  is  no  opportunity  to  raise  an 
issue  at  all. 

There  was  apparently  no  opposition  whatever  in  the 
Wisconsin  convention  to  admitting  aliens  in  this  manner. 
The  franchise  committee  recommended  it,  and  the 
measure  was  accepted.  A  minority  of  the  committee 
proposed  that  aliens  should  be  required  to  take  a  special 
oath  of  allegiance  to  the  United  States.  But  even  this 
mild  limitation  was  rejected.  This  convention  was 
quite  determined  not  to  entertain  any  suggestions  that 
would  displease  the  immigrant.^ 

In  1850  Indiana  held  a  constitutional  convention  and 
took  occasion  to  invite  the  foreign  element  to  that  state 
by  means  of  letting  down  the  suffrage  bars.  But 
Indiana  was  not  willing  to  go  as  far  as  Wisconsin  had 

*  The  press  in  various  parts  of  the  country  has  become  excited  over 
this  situation  at  the  present  time  (February,  191 8),  and  many  people 
seem  to  think  that  a  startling  discovery  has  been  made,  for  aliens  can 
now  vote  in  seven  states  of  the  Union.  Certainly  it  cannot  be  considered 
a  novel  situation,  for  aliens  have  voted  for  congressmen  somewhere  in 
the  United  States  for  seventy  years. 

*  Wis.  Conv.,  1846,  Journal,  p.  121.  This  convention  was  more  ac- 
tively occupied  with  the  negro-suffrage  question.  While  the  negro  did 
not  stand  a  chance  of  getting  the  ballot,  there  was  considerable  de- 
bate on  the  matter.  A  negro-suffrage  clause  was  rejected  sixty-nine 
to  sixteen,  while  a  proposition  to  submit  it  to  referendum  was  defeated 
by  a  much  narrower  margin,  fifty-one  to  forty-seven. 


122  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

gone,  for  there  was  some  opposition  here,  and  a  distinct 
indication  of  compromise  was  evident  from  the  start. 
It  was  said  with  considerable  force  that  the  federal 
Naturalization  Act  ought  to  express  the  best  opinion  on 
the  question  of  when  a  foreigner  was  likely  to  be  fit  to 
enjoy  the  benefits  of  citizenship  and  incidentally  the 
right  of  suffrage.  But  a  large  majority  of  the  con- 
vention thought  five  years  too  long  a  time.  It  was 
pointed  out  that  many  propertied  men  were  immigrating 
and  that  they  would  not  settle  in  Indiana  if  they  were 
kept  away  from  the  polls  for  five  years.  A  man  who 
had  paid  taxes  would  not  be  content  to  have  no  hand 
in  the  government  for  so  long  a  period. 

It  is  to  be  noted  that  what  opposition  there  was 
against  foreigners  was  maintained  merely  as  a  matter  of 
principle — quite  a  different  case  from  what  was  found  in 
the  East!  The  immigrants  in  these  western  states  were 
for  the  most  part  industrious  and  reliable  men,  such  as 
would  build  up  the  community  and  develop  its  natural 
resources.  They  were  an  altogether  desirable  class  of 
people.  Hence  there  was  not  the  practical  objection 
to  bring  against  them  that  there  was  in  New  York  and 
Massachusetts. 

The  compromise  with  those  who  adhered  rigidly  to 
principle  was  to  permit  the  alien  to  vote  one  year  after 
declaring  his  intention.  Therefore  if  an  alien  declared 
his  intention  soon  after  his  arrival  he  could  vote  four 
years  before  he  could  be  naturalized.  This  compromise 
was  accepted  by  an  overwhelming  vote  of  eighty-nine 
to  ten,  and  while  it  was  small  satisfaction  to  those  who 
beheved  that  only  citizens  should  vote,  it  did  show  a 
little  more  caution  than  Wisconsin  had  exhibited. 


Aliens  and  the  Suffrage  123 

This  constitution  provides  the  very  short-residence 
requirement  of  six  months  in  the  state  and  sixty  days  in 
the  town  or  city.  Negroes  and  mulattoes  were  specifi- 
cally excluded.  ^ 

Just  to  get  a  passing  glimpse  of  what  was  happening 
to  the  negro-suffrage  propaganda  during  this  decade  one 
may  turn  to  the  pages  of  this  convention's  records.  The 
convention  was  overwhelmingly  opposed  to  negro 
suffrage,  but  a  very  respectable  number  favored  a 
referendum  on  the  question.  However,  the  bitterness 
of  those  who  were  opposed  to  it  could  brook  no  tem- 
porizing compromises — they  wanted  the  suffrage  clause 
to  contain  the  word  ''white"  and  also  specifically  to 
exclude  negroes.  Their  violence  merely  indicates  the 
impossibility  of  calmly  debating  the  issue.  Not  an  inch 
of  ground  could  the  negro  gain  until  the  Civil  War. 
The  member  who  urged  the  referendum  was  quite  aware 
of  this  determined,  uncompromising  attitude.  He  said, 
**I  know  how  embarrassing  and  unpleasant  it  is  for  a 
member  to  offer  and  attempt  to  advocate  a  proposition 
in  any  deliberative  body  where  he  realizes  that  the 
feelings  and,  as  I  may  be  permitted  to  add  in  the  present 
case,  the  prejudices  of  the  majority  are  strongly  and 
immovably  enlisted  against  it."  The  question  of  negro 
suffrage  itself  could  not  even  come  to  a  vote,  while  the 
referendum  proposition  lost  only  by  a  narrow  margin, 
sixty-two  to  sixty,  as  in  Wisconsin.^ 

^  Ind.  Conv.,  1850,  Debates,  I,  228.  A  report  came  up  on  its  second 
reading  which  specifically  excluded  negroes  and  mulattoes:  "Mr. 
Thornton:  'I  move  to  indefinitely  postpone  the  section  because  we  have 
already  provided  that  none  but  white  male  citizens  shall  vote.'  [Loud 
cries  of  'No!  No!  No!'  'Let  it  pass,'  'It  can  do  no  harm.']  Mr. 
Thornton:  'Well,  I  will  withdraw  the  motion.'"    On  its  third  reading 


124  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 


y'l 


Illinois  secured  a  new  constitution  in  1848,  but  it  did 
not  extend  the  franchise  to  aliens.  However,  it  was  due 
to  a  very  narrow  vote  that  it  failed.  The  usual  argu- 
ments were  put  forth  in  favor  of  the  unnaturalized 
foreigner,  and  various  propositions  for  his  advantage  were 
entertained.  There  was  considerable  debate  on  the 
subject,  and  opposition  was  not  strong — ^just  based  on 
principle.  A  little  more  urging  and  there  is  no  doubt 
that  Illinois  would  have  had  a  clause  at  least  as  liberal 
as  that  of  Indiana.  But  the  franchise  committee  did 
not  include  the  alien  in  their  suffrage  clause,  and  the 
report  of  the  committee  was  accepted  as  it  stood.  A 
specific  amendment  proposed  later  to  admit  the  alien 
to  the  polls  was  defeated  by  only  nine  votes,  seventy- 
six  to  sixty-seven.^  The  convention  was  really  indolent 
over  the  matter,  being  very  much  occupied  with  more 
controversial  questions.^ 

Very  much  the  same  situation  existed  in  Michigan 
where  in  1850  a  constitutional  convention  was  held. 
The  same  complaint  was  heard  about  foreigners  who 
owned  large  amounts  of  land  on  which  they  paid  taxes 
and  still  were  not  able  to  vote.  In  some  localities  the 
foreign  element  constituted  such  a  large  proportion  of 
the  population  that  frequently  a  mere  handful  of  legal 
voters  could  be  found,  even  in  a  good-sized  community. 
Such  conditions  as  this  caused  much  dissatisfaction. 
Various  short  periods  were  suggested  after  which  the 


it  passed  without  a  word.  The  incident  shows  that  opponents  of  negro 
suffrage  were  taking  no  chances  whatever — they  wanted  to  exclude  the 
negroes  twice. 

^  The  very  mention  of  negro  suffrage  raised  a  storm  of  protest.  A 
resolution  to  cut  the  word  "white"  out  of  the  suffrage  clause  was  snowed 
under  one  hundred  and  thirty-seven  to  eight. 

"  111.  Conv.,  1847,  Journal,  p.  205. 


Aliens  and  the  Suffrage  125 

alien  was  to  be  permitted  to  vote;  one  novel  measure 
provided  that  if  at  the  end  of  the  five-year  period  the 
alien  did  not  take  advantage  of  his  opportunity  and 
become  naturalized  his  right  to  vote  was  to  be  taken 
from  him.  This  was  a  rather  impractical  suggestion,  of 
course,  and  did  not  meet  with  much  favor. 

There  was  some  slight  opposition  to  alien  suffrage, 
and  one  interesting  petition  was  presented  coming  from 
the  naturalized  citizens  of  the  state  asking  that  suffrage 
be  not  granted  to  aliens.  But  it  was  hard  to  overcome 
the  economic  arguments  which  pointed  out  that  already 
the  state  had  spent  many  thousands  of  dollars  to  induce 
immigrants  to  settle  in  the  state,  that  Wisconsin  and 
Indiana  were  permitting  them  to  vote,  and  that  Michigan 
would  lose  her  share  if  she  did  not  do  likewise.^  How- 
ever, the  foreigners  lost  their  cause  by  a  narrow  margin, 
although  opposition  had  not  been  keen;  and  the 
Michigan  constitution  of  1850  admitted  only  white  male 
citizens  to  the  suffrage  after  a  short  residence  of  six 
months  in  the  state.  The  short  residence  was  calculated 
to  attract  immigrants,  at  least  to  a  slight  degree. 

The  cause  of  the  free  negro  was  brought  up  and  at 
once  gave  rise  to  the  same  bitter  feeling  that  had  charac- 
terized the  debate  on  the  subject  in  the  other  states  of 
this  section.^  The  delegate  who  introduced  the  matter 
frankly   admitted   that  he  knew   that  his   cause  was 

*  Mich,  Conv.,  1850,  Debates,  p.  47. 

*  He  was  supported  by  Mr.  Leach,  who  gave  an  oration  on  the  past 
glories  of  Africa.  "Her  victorious  arms  nearly  annihilated  the  Romans. 
Her  black  Hannibal  will  ever  be  found  in  the  catalogue  of  the  Caesars 
and  Bonapartes. 

"A  member:  'That  is  incorrect.  Hannibal  was  not  a  colored 
man — not  a  negro.' 

"Mr.  Leach:  'Well,  I  am  quoting  democratic  authority,  and  I  hope 
democrats  will  not  question  such  authority.'" — Ibid.,  p.  285. 


126  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

/  hopeless,  and  that  he  merely  begged  an  opportunity  to 

/  speak  in  order  that  he  might  feel  that  he  had  done  his 
duty/  Of  course  his  measure  was  utterly  swamped, 
and  of  course  a  proposal  was  made  for  a  referendum. 
This  prevailed,  and  the  question  was  later  put  to  the 
electorate,  where  it  was  defeated  two  to  one. 

,  These  facts  about  the  question  of  negro  suffrage  are 
very  interesting  when  it  is  considered  that  only  a  few 

:  years  later  Congress  is  found  imposing  negro  suffrage 

^  j  upon  the  South  in  order  not  to  violate  the  principles  of 

democracy.     Everywhere  in  the  North  negro  suffrage 

was  being  denounced,  in  an  unmistakable  manner,  in 

'  constitutional  conventions  and  at  the  polls.  And  yet 
Congress,  in  the  face  of  this  record  of  repudiation, 

,  declared   that  the  nation  demanded  suffrage  for  the 

>  liberated  negro.  No  wonder  that  in  bitter  terms  the 
accusation  came  from  the  South  that  Congress  acted 
from  ulterior  and  revengeful  motives. 

Iowa,  Florida,  and  Texas  had  all  been  admitted  to 
the  Union  by  this  time,  but  there  was  nothing  particu- 
larly noteworthy  concerning  suffrage  in  their  constitu- 
tions.    They  all  excluded  the  negro,  and  Iowa  had  the 

'short-residence  term  of  six  months.  California  came 
into  the  Union  in  1850,  and  the  convention  which  drafted 

;  her  constitution  the  year  before  had  faced  a  rather 
difficult  question  concerning  Mexicans.  The  treaty  of 
peace  with  Mexico  permitted  the  Mexicans  who  wished 
to  do  so  to  become  United  States  citizens,  but  if  Cali- 
fornia had  a  provision  in  her  constitution  restricting  the 
suffrage  to  *' white  males,"  a  large  number  of  these 
citizens  might  be  disfranchised.     Furthermore,  a  great 

*  Mich.  Conv.,  1850,  Debates,  p.  285. 


Aliens  and  the  Suffrage  127 

many  Indians  had  become  Mexican  citizens,  and  while 
California  was  not  opposed  to  admitting  true  Mexicans 
to  the  suffrage,  there  was  great  opposition  to  giving  the 
Indians  any  chance  to  vote.  There  were  a  great  many 
Indians  in  the  state  ready  to  take  advantage  of  any 
weakness  in  the  law  for  the  sake  of  the  money  they 
could  get.  But  the  convention  passed  the  burden  on 
to  the  legislature.  All  white  male  citizens  were  to  vote,  ; 
including  Mexicans  who  became  citizens  under  the  terms 
of  the  treaty,  and  the  legislature  was  given  the  duty  of 
excluding  Indians  in  appropriate  terms. 

California's  contribution  to  the  negro  problem  was  al 
resolution  in  convention  calling  upon  the  legislature  at  I  / 
its  first  session  to  pass  laws  effectively  excluding  free  y^ 
negroes  from  the  state  and  to  prevent  owners  of  slaves  j 
from  bringing  them  into  the  state.  In  the  East,  in  the"Y  / 
West,  and  in  the  Central  states  the  negro  was  I  ^ 
emphatically  repulsed. 

In  the  same  year,  1850,  Kentucky  received  a  new 
constitution.  There  was  not  much  real  controversy 
over  the  suffrage  clause,  although  certain  fanatical 
persons  succeeded  in  using  up  a  vast  amount  of  time  in 
argument.  They  sought  to  exclude  even  naturalized 
citizens  from  the  polls.  It  was  an  echo  of  the  Native 
American  anti-Catholic  movement  that  was  being  stirred 
up  about  this  time.  The  debate  soon  ran  over  into  the 
Catholic  question  and  waxed  hot  and  long  without  much 
point.'  Those  responsible  for  injecting  the  argument 
had  been  put  off  and  put  off  until  nearly  the  end  of  the 
session,  but  finally  their  representative  got  the  floor, 
and  while  he  admitted  that  interest  had  flagged  in 

^  Ky.  Conv.,  1849,  Debates,  p.  1012. 


i 


128  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

Native  Americanism  he  wished  still  to  do  his  best,  and 
he  did  for  many  hours.  But  the  convention  was  by  no 
means  willing  to  put  extra  burdens  upon  the  naturalized 
citizen.  While  there  was  not  the  same  motive  to  give 
them  suffrage  before  naturalization  as  there  was  in 
Wisconsin  and  Indiana,  there  was  also  lacking  the  senti- 
ment that  prevailed  in  New  England.  The  only  feature 
of  this  constitution  that  could  be  looked  upon  as  work- 
ing against  the  foreigner  was  the  two-year-residence 
requirement. 

The  constitution  under  which  "bleeding  Kansas" 
joined  the  Union  in  1861  was  drawn  in  1859.  As  the 
epithet  implies,  there  had  been  a  long  and  bitter  contest 
over  this  state  as  to  whether  or  not  slavery  should  be 
permitted  there.  There  is  no  occasion  to  go  into  that 
controversy  here.  It  is  dealt'  with  in  most  general 
histories  and  occupied  a  great  deal  of  time  in  Congress;^ 
pbut  the  constitution  finally  adopted  and  put  in  operation 
in  Kansas  permitted  foreigners  to  vote  after  declaring 
their  intention  to  become  citizens. 

On  February  22,  1856,  the  American  party  ("Know- 
Nothings")  held  a  national  convention  at  Philadelphia 
and  drew  up  a  party  platform.  They  specifically 
denounced  Wisconsin  and  certain  territories  for  having 
admitted  aliens  to  the  suffrage  and  proceeded  to  declare 
some  very  radical  doctrines.  Two  of  the  articles  in 
their  platform  are  as  follows : 

Article  8.  An  enforcement  of  the  principle  that  no  state  or 
territory  ought  to  admit  others  than  citizens  to  the  right  of  suffrage 
or  of  holding  political  offices  in  the  United  States. 

^  House  Committee  Reports,  First  Session,  Thirty-fifth  Congress,  III, 
82,  No.  377. 


Aliens  and  the  Suffrage  129 

Article  9.    A  change  in  the  laws  of  naturalization,  making  a  . 
continued  residence  of  twenty-one  years,  of  all  not  heretofore    |^ 
provided  for,  an  indispensable  requisite  for  citizenship  hereafter.^ 

This  party  had  been  growing  for  some  years  and  was 
one  of  the  very  few  parties  in  the  country  to  exist  merely 
for  the  purpose  of  exploiting  a  particular,  narrow  policy ._ 
It  opposed  foreigners  and  Catholics,  and  that  is  about  all  \    / 
it  stood  for.     The  party  was  lost  in  the  Civil  War. 

The  Democrats  in  their  convention  the  following 
June  took  occasion  to  score  the  "Know-Nothings" 
for  their  undemocratic  opinions,  but  they  had  nothing 
positive  to  say  about  the  foreigner  and  the  policy  certain 
states  were  following  in  admitting  aliens  to  the  polls. 

But  the  question  had  come  up  in  Congress  and  was 
found  occupying  the  attention  of  the  Senate  even  while 
the  Democrats  were  holding  their  convention.^  A 
certain  very  persistent  member  was  able  to  get  up  for 
debate  a  bill  that  provided  the  anti-foreigner  elements 
every  chance  they  needed  to  express  their  views.  The 
bill  itself  was  too  extravagant  to  enlist  any  intelligent 
support,  for  it  sought  to  oblige  foreigners  to  remain  in 
the  country  twenty-one  years  before  they  could  become 
naturalized.  That  was  considered  the  best  way  to 
prevent  them  from  voting  without  interfering  with  the 
state's  rights  in  the  matter  of  suffrage. 

It  was  said  that  foreigners  constituted  a  very  grave 
menace  where  they  exercised  political  power  because  they 
settled  in  groups  by  themselves  and  were  not  assimilated 
and   did   not    develop    an   intelligent   interest   in,    or 

^  McKee,  op.  cit.,  p.  loo. 

"  Congressional  Globe,  First  Session,  Thirty-fourth  Congress,  Part  II, 
p.  1409. 


130  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

sympathy  for,  American  political  institutions.  Many  of 
them  were  in  a  condition  of  abject  ignorance,  it  was  said, 
and  were  easily  induced  to  become  the  tools  of  corruption. 
Attention  was  called  to  a  large  number  of  revolutionary, 
anarchistic,  and  sacrilegious  organizations  of  foreign- 
born  men  that  were  flourishing  throughout  the  country. 
The  propaganda  literature  issued  by  these  organizations 
was  decidedly  inflammatory,  and  was  greatly  enlarged 
upon  by  ''Know-Nothing"  people.  But  there  was 
considerably  more  force  in  the  argument  that  the 
foreigner  was  adding  fuel  to  the  slavery  controversy. 
No  matter  how  ignorant  and  stupid  the  immigrant  might 
be,  he  was  more  than  likely  to  be  sure  of  one  thing — that 
he  did  not  believe  in  holding  slaves.  He  could  not 
discuss  state's  rights,  theories  of  sovereignty,  and 
nullification,  but  he  was  unequivocally  opposed  to  the 
slaveholder,  and  that  fact  made  him  an  important  factor. 

However,  for  the  most  part  the  arguments  against 
the  foreigner  were  obviously  the  outgrowth  of  prejudice 
if  not  of  fanaticism.  The  ''Know-Nothings"  had  their 
day  in  the  senate  and  were  treated  with  indulgent 
contempt,  after  which  the  twenty-one-year  naturaliza- 
tion bill  was  quietly  put  away. 

In  1857  Minnesota  came  into  the  Union,  and  in  the 
same  year  Iowa  provided  herself  with  a  new  constitution. 
The  debates  in  the  Minnesota  convention  that  formed 
her  constitution  show  how  the  foreigner  came  to  get  the 
franchise  there.  The  original  committee  report  was  in 
favor  of  it  and  there  was  practically  no  opposition.^  The 
/  idea  seemed  to  be  that  on  general  principles  it  was  not  a 
'   good  thing  to  let  a  non-citizen  vote  perhaps,  but  some- 

^  Minn.  Conv.,  1857,  Debases,  p.  425. 


Aliens  and  the  Suffrage  131 

thing  ought  to  be  done  to  attract  immigrants  to  the  state,  (  n, 
so  the  alien  was  permitted  to  vote  after  declaring  his   \ 
intention.     Another  inducement  they  decided  to  try 
was  the  six-month-residence  requirement. 

In  contrast  to  this  benevolent  attitude  toward  the  ■ 
foreigner  it  is  worth  while  noting  that  the  free  negro  did  j 
not  have  enough  friends  even  to  stir  up  a  debate.  The 
propriety  of  admitting  Indians  to  vote  occupied  more 
attention  than  the  negro  problem,  and  the  constitution 
excludes  negroes,  while  it  only  excludes  such  Indians  as 
were  uncivilized. 

But  in  Iowa  there  was  a  hot  battle  over  the  negro,  in  ■  4^ 
which  he  lost.^     Here  too  a  six  months'  residence  was  j     ' 
all  that  was  required.     There  is  no  evidence  that  it  was 
placed  low  to  attract  aliens,  for  the  foreigner  question 
did  not  come  up  for  debate  to  any  extent. 

Out  on  the  western  coast  a  new  state  came  in  to  join 
California.  Oregon  was  admitted  in  1859.  This  state  j 
has  always  been  radical  in  its  policy,  and  it  is  interesting 
to  note  that  Oregon  began  her  history  by  permitting  -» 
aliens  to  vote.  Those  who  declared  their  intention  and 
lived  in  the  state  one  year  were  granted  the  elective 
franchise.  This  involved  a  six  months'  longer  period 
than  was  required  of  natives.  Chinamen,  negroes, 
and  mulattoes  were  specifically  excluded  from  the  ^ 
suffrage. 

For  a  moment  take  a  bird's-eye  view  of  all  the  states 
just  before  the  war.     On  the  Pacific  coast  the  Chinaman  i 
was  excluded  with  violent  indignation.     On  the  Atlantic 
coast  the  Irishman  was  the  object  of  execration.     Massa- 
chusetts in  1859  amended  her  constitution  to  require  all 

^  Iowa  Conv.,  1857,  Debates,  p.  649. 


4 


132  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

foreigners  to  live  in  the  state  two  years  after  naturaliza- 
tion in  order  to  vote.     In  the  middle  states  the  foreigner 
^j  was  being  enticed  with  brief  residence  periods  and  even 

tthe  franchise  itself.  But  everywhere  the  door  was 
slammed  in  the  face  of  the  negro.  New  states  that  came 
in  followed  the  practice  of  their  neighbors  for  the  most 
part,  being  subject  to  the  same  forces  that  were  working 
on  the  older  states  in  the  neighborhood. 

Sometimes  a  policy  was  fixed  before  the  territory 
assumed  statehood.  But  the  action  of  a  territorial 
government  could  hardly  be  considered  of  great  sig- 
nificance. The  policies  of  the  territorial  governments 
came  to  be  crystallized  and  perpetuated  in  the  state 
constitutions  or  else  were  abandoned  as  being  no  longer 
popular. 

It  has  been  the  policy  of  this  government  from  the 
very  earliest  times  to  permit  the  inhabitants  of  territories 
to  establish  their  own  institutions,  and  above  all  not  to 
impose  upon  them  measures  that  would  be  out  of  har- 
mony with  the  spirit  of  the  times  and  of  the  locality. 
[Hence  the  suffrage  requirements  in  the  territories  have 
'  always  been  liberal,  though  not  always  the  same  for 
each    territory.     The    Northwest    Ordinance    of    1787 
prescribed  a  freehold  qualification  which  of  course  was 
in  keeping  with  the  times.     But  when  new  territories 
;  sought  to  become  organized  early  in  the  nineteenth 
[  century  all  such  restrictions  were  abandoned.     Congress 
would  pass  a  separate  act  organizing  a  territory  as 
occasion    demanded    and    almost    invariably    white- 
manhood  suffrage  was  granted.^     But  during  these  years 

^Reports  of  Committees,  House  of  Representatives,  First  Session, 
Thirty-fifth  Congress,  No.  371,  p.  966. 


Aliens  and  the  Suffrage  133 

from  1840  until  the  war  the  organic  acts  of  some  terri- 
tories permitted  aliens  to  vote,  whereas  in  other 
territories  they  were  not  included.'  This  condition  gave 
rise  to  a  great  deal  of  dissatisfaction,  for  it  was  said  that 
there  was  no  excuse  for  Congress  not  adopting  a  con- 
sistent practice  and  making  suffrage  rights  uniform 
throughout  all  the  territories.  A  committee  of  the 
House  of  Representatives  was  set  to  work  investigating 
the  matter  in  1858  and  reported  that  it  was  a  violation 
of  the  spirit  of  the  Constitution  that  foreigners  could 
vote  in  some  states  and  not  in  others.  But  although 
Congress  had  the  power  to  interfere  in  the  territories  and 
impose  its  will  upon  the  territorial  government  until 
statehood  was  achieved,  to  have  done  so  would  have  been 
to  violate  the  well-established  custom  of  leaving  terri- 
tories free  to  do  as  they  saw  fit. 

However,  as  said  before,  what  was  done  in  the  terri- 
tories is  not  very  important.  Congress  was  in  a  position 
to  dictate  at  any  time,''  and  furthermore  there  was  no 
adequate  machinery  for  expressing  the  popular  will  even 
if  it  had  been  authoritative.  Political  consciousness  in 
the  territories  did  not  really  awake  until  constitutional 
conventions  were  called,  and  the  constitutions  they 
drew  up  as  permanent  authoritative  instruments  were 
the  first  significant  expressions  of  popular  will. 

Speaking  of  the  territories,  it  may  not  be  out  of  place 
just  to  mention  the  District  of  Columbia.  The  city  of 
Washington  was  incorporated  on  May  3,  1802,  and  it 
was  provided  then  that  the  city  council  should  be  elected 

^W.  F.  Willoughby,  Territories  and  Dependencies  of  the  United 
States,  Index. 

^  Utah  279,  22  Stat.  30,  24  Stat.  635. 


134  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

by  the  white  taxpayers  resident  in  the  city  one  year. 
Such  a  provision  was  of  course  in  perfect  keeping  with 
the  spirit  of  the  time,  and  it  prevailed  until  1855,  when 
the  taxpaying  qualification  was  dropped.  Negroes, 
however,  were  still  excluded. 

The  purpose  of  this  chapter  has  been  primarily  to 

show  how  the  alien  was  received  in  the  middle  western 

states  and  why  the  suffrage  was  extended  to  him;   but 

it  is  hoped  that  the  comments  made  from  time  to  time 

about  the  way  in  which  free  negroes  were  received  have 

not  gone  unnoticed.     Congress  saw  fit  later  to  fling  wide 

the  polls  to  the  negro,  but  there  was  not  one  shred  of 

evidence   to   show  that  anywhere  in  the  North  men 

wanted  negro  voters  in  their  midst.     Done  under  the 

i  cloak  of  hypocrisy  in  feigned  support  of  democratic 

\  principles,  it  was  in  truth  a  revengeful,  punitive  measure 

4  ^  directed   at  the   South,   for   which  the  entire  nation 

suffered. 


CHAPTER  VI 
BEGINNINGS  OF  WOMAN  SUFFRAGE 

It  is  now  appropriate  to  take  up  an  entirely  new 
phase  of  the  suffrage  expansion.  The  elective  franchise 
had  been  demanded  and  secured  by  practically  all  the 
native  white  men  in  the  nation,  a  tendency  was  manifest 
to  give  it  to  the  alien  in  many  localities,  the  negro- 
suffrage  problem  was  due  to  be  solved — men  little 
realized  how  soon — and  then  came  the  demand  from  an ' 
entirely  new  quarter.  Women  demanded  the  ballot. 
Property  barriers  had  been  swept  away,  race  and 
nationality  were  not  insuperable  obstacles — but  could 
the  tide  break  through  the  barricade  of  sex  ?  It  surely 
did!  And  such  great  progress  has  the  movement  made 
that  many  do  not  realize  that  the  first  steps  were  taken 
so  recently  as  1848. 

It  really  seems  quite  fitting  that  the  United  States 
should  have  been  the  original  battleground  upon  which 
this  issue  was  to  be  fought  out.  Whether  or  not  one 
is  in  sympathy  with  woman-suffrage  claims,  they  are 
made  upon  the  basis  of  democracy,  and  this  country  was 
the  proper  place  to  try  them  out.  A  recent  writer  has 
said,  ''North  America  is  the  cradle  of  the  Woman's 
Rights  movement,"  and  the  author  dilates  upon  the 
liberal  Colonial  institutions  to  prove  it.^  But  the  infant 
outgrew  the  cradle  with  startling  rapidity. 

^  K.  Schirmacher,  Modern  Woman's  Rights  Movement,  p.  3.  How- 
ever, this  book,  written  by  a  foreign  author,  gives  a  very  incorrect 
impression.    It  implies  that  as  the  Colonial  charters  apparently  did 


136  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

/  Woman  suffrage  was  almost  unheard  of  up  to  the 
/I  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century.  The  exceptional 
\_case  in  New  Jersey  proves  the  rule;  and  the  facts  have 
been  retold  so  many  times  that  apologies  should  be 
offered  for  giving  them  here.^  In  the  New  Jersey  con- 
stitution of  July  2,  1776,  the  privilege  of  voting  for 
assemblymen  was  given  to  "all  inhabitants  of  full  age 
who  are  worth  fifty  pounds  proclamation  money." 
There  was  nothing  to  indicate  that  anybody  expected 
women  to  take  advantage  of  this  clause,  and  it  seems 
that  they  did  not  do  so  in  sufficiently  large  numbers  to 
attract  any  attention,  for  in  1797  the  new  constitution 
contained  the  phrase  "all  free  inhabitants,"  etc.  But 
some  closely  contested  elections  a  few  years  later  stimu- 
lated interest  to  such  an  extent  that  women  did  seek 
to  vote,  and  no  legal  impediment  could  be  discovered  to 
prevent  them.  The  action  ultimately  led  to  such  dis- 
orders that  in  1807  the  legislature  took  proper  steps  to 
put  a  stop  to  woman  suffrage  for  good  and  all. 

But  the  movement  in  the  later  forties  was  quite  a 
different  thing.  Here  was  no  frivolous  attempt  to  take 
\  advantage  of  careless  phraseology,  but  a  firm  demand 
on  the  part  of  serious  people  that  the  suffrage  be  granted 
to  women.  This  demand  was  only  one  aspect  of  the 
general  movement  for  the  so-called  emancipation  of 
women  and  has  been  greatly  overemphasized.  There 
were  a  great  many  reforms  that  the  women  wanted  in 
order  that  they  might  be  relieved  of  serious  disabilities 


not  exclude  women  from  the  franchise  they  took  an  active  part  in  politics , 
and  that  the  first  constitutions  in  the  various  states  marked  a  distinct 
reaction.    Of  course  such  an  interpretation  is  quite  erroneous. 
^  Historical  Magazine,  I,  360. 


Beginnings  of  Woman  Suffrage  137 

and  injustice.  But  they  seemed  to  think  that  if  they 
had  the  suffrage  everything  would  be  put  right  at  once. 
Even  the  wisest  of  them  chased  this  phantom  and 
thought  they  saw  in  woman  suffrage  a  panacea  for  all 
ills.^  Almost  fanatical  in  the  worship  of  their  cause, 
the  originators  of  the  movement  had  visions  of  the 
millennium,  at  once  interpreted  democracy  in  terms  of 
their  own  pet  hobby,  and  set  about  the  task  of  reform- 
ing the  country  with  energy  exceeded  only  by  their  per- 
severance. Extravagant  panegyrics  were  heaped  upon 
anyone  who  spoke  in  favor  of  the  cause,  however  fatuous 
his  arguments  might  be,  while  studied  vituperation  was 
bestowed  upon  all  who  blocked  the  way. 

The  point  to  be  made  in  this  connection  is  that  the 
demand  for  woman  suffrage  did  not  slowly  emerge  and 
take  definite  form  as  a  result  of  sober  thought.  It  broke 
like  a  bomb  shell.  No  compromises  were  tolerated — 
full  suffrage  for  women  was  demanded  at  once.  Con- 
trast this  situation  with  the  move  for  complete  manhood 
suffrage!  These  advocates  of  the  new  cause  would  not 
even  think  of  halfway  measures.  The  propositions  that 
property-owning  women  should  vote,  that  unmarried 
women  should  vote,  that  taxpaying  women  should  vote, 
were  never  entertained  for  a  moment.  Of  course  such 
compromises  may  have  had  no  merit,  it  is  true,  but  those 
were  the  painful  steps  by  which  both  white  men  and 
negroes  obtained  the  vote.  The  women  conjured  up 
every  disability  under  which  their  sex  had  ever  labored 

*  "While  complaining  of  many  wrongs  and  oppressions,  women 
themselves  did  not  see  that  the  political  disability  of  sex  was  the  cause 
of  all  their  special  grievances." — Stanton,  Anthony,  and  Gage,  History 
of  Woman  Suffrage  (4  vols.),  I,  15. 


s 


138  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

in  truth  or  fiction  and  shouted  their  wrongs  from  every 
housetop.  The  cure-all  was  to  be  full,  complete,  un- 
hampered woman  suffrage. 

It  cannot  be  denied  that  women  had  suffered  great 
injustice  and  found  themselves  in  a  most  humiliating 
position  under  the  common  law.'  And  in  many  states 
even  the  most  serious  disabilities  had  not  been  removed. 
The  old  theory  of  the  law  was  that  a  married  woman's 
legal  existence  was  suspended,  or  incorporated  in  that 
of  her  husband,  and  she  was  said  to  be  in  a  state  of 
*' coverture."  Husband  and  wife  were  one,  and  that 
one  the  husband.  He  assumed  all  her  debts  and  she 
was  not  capable  of  maintaiping  legal  relationships  inde- 
pendent of  him.  Her  property  became  his,  her  earnings 
were  his,  she  could  bring  rio  action  at  law  without  his 
aid,  and  all  her  dealings^  w(th  the  government  had  to  be 
through  him.  Not  only  cWd  she  hold  no  property  in 
her  own  right,  but  she  had  no  rights  with  regard  to  her 
children.  In  a  word,  no  wife  could  go  into  court  and 
claim  anything  so  long  as  her  husband  was  not  a  criminal. 
Obviously  the  woman  had  quite  enough  to  complain 
about,  but  it  is  significant  that  most  of  these  disabilities 
were  removed  without  her  exercising  the  franchise^ 

It  was  easy  for  the  women  to  tie  their  cause  up  with 
the  slavery  issue.  Time  and  again  they  reiterated  the 
statement  that  their  condition  was  no  better  than  that 
of  the  slave.  This  gross  exaggeration  must  have  tried 
the  patience  even  of  those  who  were  doing  all  they  could 
to  remedy  the  situation.  But  to  associate  the  plight 
of  the  woman  with  that  of  the  negro  showed  clever  tactics 
and  won  large  numbers  to  their  cause.    And  indeed  it 

^  Blackstone,  Commentaries,  I,  442. 


Beginnings  of  Woman  Suffrage  139 

has  been  said  by  many  that  the  woman-suffrage  move- 
ment dates  from  the  World's  Anti- Slavery  Convention 
held  at  London,  June  12,  1840.  After  all,  the  demands 
of  the  women  can  be  summed  up  in  a  very  brief  state- 
ment. Right  from  the  very  first  day  on  which  they 
started  out  upon  their  crusade  they  simply  demanded  a 
legal  right  to  do  whatever  a  man  could  do. 

The  first  woman's  rights  convention  was  organized  by 
women  who  had  attended  the  Anti-Slavery  Convention 
in  London.^  They  issued  a  call  upon  their  own  initiative, 
inviting  all  who  were  interested  to  attend.  The  conven- 
tion met  at  Seneca  Falls,  New  York,  July  19,  1848.  It 
is  almost  impossible  today  to  realize  what  moral  strength 
it  required  for  women  to  undertake  such  a  step.  The 
prejudice  of  centuries  weighed  down  upon  them.  No 
wonder  they  lost  courage  at  the  last  moment  and  called 
in  sympathetic  men  to  run  the  convention  for  them. 
But  the  women  read  their  papers  and  outlined  a  basis 
for  future  campaigns.  In  addition  to  the  right  to  vote 
they  claimed  equal  rights  in  universities,  the  trades,  and 
professions,  and  the  right  to  share  in  all  political  offices,^ 
honors,  and  emoluments.  They  demanded  equality  in 
marriage,  personal  freedom,  property  rights,  rights  over 
their  children,  the  right  to  make  contracts,  to  sue  and 
be  sued,  and  to  testify  in  court. 

At  once  the  specific  arguments  in  favor  of  woman 
suffrage  were  based  on  ^' right."  Of  course  there  was  an 
implication  that  satisfaction  of  this  right  would  neces- 
sarily involve  the  good  of  the  state.  But  the  fact 
remains  that  it  was  women's  ^'rights"  that  were  insisted 
upon,  and  they  were  said  to  have  a  ''right"  to  vote.     It 

^  Stanton  et  al.,  op.  cit.,  I,  67. 


140  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

was  not  until  this  proposition  was  bolstered  up  by  the 
expediency  doctrine  that  the  cause  made  fundamental 
headway.  But  the  claim  to  "rights"  was  the  opening 
wedge  and  served  to  bring  together  a  nucleus  of  fighters 
ready  to  do  more  and  sacrifice  more  than  people  who 
supported  the  cause  for  different  reasons.  To  be  sure, 
a  study  of  the  alleged  "right"  might  induce  one  to 
believe  that  it  would  be  for  the  good  of  the  state  to 
permit  women  to  vote.  But  practically  no  one  came 
out  boldly  and  said :  It  is  for  the  good  of  the  social  order, 
it  is  for  the  good  of  the  state,  that  women  should  vote. 
Such  a  statement  was  too  blunt,  too  harsh,  not  at  all 
idealistic.  Men  pretended  to  avoid  such  materialistic 
motives;  they  had  done  so  in  the  past  and  they  did  so 
then. 

There  was  no  trouble  in  adjusting  the  old  arguments 
to  suit  the  new  occasion.  For  more  than  half  a  century 
the  advocates  of  broader  suffrage  had  been  filling  up 
their  arsenal  with  weapons  to  use  upon  conservatives. 
Many  of  the  liberals  were  shocked  beyond  expression 
and  left  speechless  when  the  women  raided  their  armory, 
took  their  weapons,  and  went  forth  to  use  them  as  they 
(had  seen  them  used  by  men.  Natural,  inalienable, 
inherent  right!  No  taxation  without  representation! 
Government  by  consent  of  the  governed!  All  that  old- 
time  revolutionary  philosophy  with  its  mixture  of  truth 
and  abominations  was  revived  once  more  and  spread 
broadcast  by  the  abolitionists  and  woman-suffrage  ad- 
vocates alike. 

Characteristic  of  this  sort  of  argument  is  a  statement 
^to  be  found  in  the  records  of  the  Massachusetts  constitu- 
tional convention  of  1853 : 


Beginnings  of  Woman  Suffrage  141 


I  maintain  first  that  the  people  have  a  certain  natural  right, 
which  under  special  conditions  of  society  manifests  itself  in  the 
form  of  a  right  to  vote.  I  maintain  secondly  that  the  women  of 
Massachusetts  are  people  existing  under  those  special  conditions 
of  society.  I  maintain  finally,  and  by  necessary  consequence,  that 
the  women  of  Massachusetts  have  a  natural  right  to  vote.^ 

That  is  the  sort  of  argument  that  marked  the  beginning 
of  the  woman-suffrage  movement.  Once  more  the 
strange  phenomenon  appeared — the  suffrage  expanding 
on  a  wave  of  specious  doctrine.  But  it  caught  the  popu- 
lar fancy  and  served  to  bring  the  issue  forward. 
*  The  opposition  was  indignant,  more  or  less  ridiculous, 
and  thoroughly  unprepared.  Men  objected  in  stuttering 
bewilderment  at  the  audacity  of  women.  Religious  non- 
sense was  paraded  by  the  clergy,  and  what  may  almost 
be  called  sexual  prejudice  and  morbidity  had  to  be  over- 
come before  the  subject  could  be  debated  on  a  rational 
plane.  Indeed  the  opposition  hardly  took  definite 
form  before  the  Civil  War.  The  only  consistent  oppo- 
sition to  be  found  was  in  the  church.  Disorderly  mobs 
at  the  suffrage  meetings  howled  their  derision,  well 
supported  by  the  clergy.  The  newspapers  reported 
everything  to  the  disadvantage  of  the  suffragists  and 
caused  as  much  trouble  for  them  as  they  could.  But 
responsible  statesmen  and  thinking  men  were  slow  to 
come  to  the  point  of  considering  it  necessary  to  give  the 
matter  any  serious  attention.  They  were  inclined  to 
stigmatize  the  suffrage  meetings  in  the  same  careless, 
impersonal  manner  with  which  they  would  denounce  an 
indecent  show;  or  else  they  resorted  to  indulgent 
ridicule  or  vulgar  jest. 

^  Mass.  Conv.,  Debates,  II,  726. 


4 


142  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

But  the  propaganda  was  carried  forward  in  spite  of 
all.  Conventions  and  meetings  were  called  in  nearly  all 
the  states  and  principal  cities.  For  the  most  part  they 
were  informal.  Anyone  who  had  anything  to  say  was 
invited  to  speak.  With  unparalleled  chivalry  the  women 
permitted  their  opponents  to  address  them  from  their 
platforms.  To  the  credit  of  the  women  it  must  be  said 
that  these  opponents  were  frequently  received  with  more 
courtesy  than  they  deserved.  But  it  must  be  remem- 
bered that  men  of  the  best  type  were  not  yet  in  the  field 
against  the  suffragists. 

In  practically  every  city  where  the  women  met  they 
had  to  face  hostile  public  sentiment.  Clergymen  refused 
to  open  their  meetings  with  prayer,  pompous  school  men 
strode  into  their  midst  and  sneered  at  them  in  a  con- 
/  descending  manner.  There  was  plenty  of  sound,  digni- 
{  fied,  rational  argument  with  which  these  women  could 
have  been  met,  but  there  was  no  one  to  use  it.  A 
dignified  opposition  from  able  men  would  have  troubled 
the  women  far  more  than  abuse  and  ridicule.  If  they 
had  had  to  meet  such  men  as  John  Adams,  Daniel 
Webster,  and  Chancellor  Kent  the  story  of  woman 
suffrage  might  have  been  different.  Men  of  that  type 
really  did  oppose  the  woman-suffrage  movement,  just 
as  they  had  formerly  opposed  the  abandonment  of 
property  tests.  It  is  therefore  somewhat  unfortunate 
that  they  did  not  consider  it  worth  their  while  to  come 
forward  at  this  time.  Then  the  movement  would  at 
least  have  been  tried  on  its  real  merits  and  might  have 
been  checked. 

The  national  convention  at  Philadelphia  in  October, 
1854,  was  one  of  the  most  significant.     The  president  of 


Beginnings  of  Woman  Suffrage  143 

the  convention,  a  woman,  expressly  repudiated  all  doc- 
trines based  on  expediency.^  She  denied  that  expediency 
had  anything  to  do  with  the  matter  and  only  spoke  of 
woman's  "rights."  The  convention  hall  was  packed  at 
every  session  in  spite  of  admission  fees,  and  many  were 
turned  away.  William  Lloyd  Garrison  was  a  promi- 
nent figure  on  this  occasion  and  was  chiefly  useful  in 
meeting  the  opposition  of  the  clergymen.  He  said  that 
he  did  not  have  to  go  to  the  Bible  to  get  proof  that  he 
was  right,  and  he  cared  not  a  straw  for  quotations  from 
Paul. 

But  while  this  was  a  significant  convention  the 
real  battlefield  of  woman  suffrage  has  always  been  in 
New  York.  For  some  unaccountable  reason  most  of 
the  strong-minded  women  of  the  country  seem  to  have 
lived  in  that  state.  There  it  was  that  most  of  their 
conventions  were  held,  and  from  there  the  authoritative 
propaganda  issued. 

The  yearly  conventions  were  the  scenes  of  tumult 
and  disorder.^  The  leadel-s  did  nothing  to  allay  the 
irritation  their  cause  was  stirring  up.  They  felt  that 
it  would  stultify  them  to  compromise  their  principles 
and  curry  favor  with  the  crowd.     Hence  they  openly 

^  "There  is  one  argument  which  in  my  estimation  is  the  argument 
of  arguments,  why  woman  should  have  her  rights;  not  on  account  of 
expediency,  not  on  account  of  policy,  though  these  too  show  the  reason 
why  she  should  have  her  rights;  but  we  claim — I  for  one  claim,  and  I 
presume  all  our  friends  claim — our  right  on  the  broad  ground  of  human 

rights;  a.nd  Hot  one  will  say  I  promise  not  howwe  shall  use  them 

By  human  rights  we  mean  natural  rights.  They  are  guaranteed  by  the 
Declaration  of  Independence  and  ....  what  right  has  man  to  deprive 
her  of  her  natural  and  inalienable  rights?" — Stanton  et  al.,  op.  cit., 
I,  376. 

^  Ibid.,  p.  567. 


144  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

fraternized  with  negroes,  certain  of  their  numbers  wore 
bloomers  on  the  platform,  and  they  affected  mascuKne 
ways  until  the  crowd  was  roused  to  frenzy.  Far  from 
being  dismayed  at  the  violent  demonstrations,  they 
were  only  stimulated  to  greater  determination  and  pur- 
sued their  object  with  a  zeal  scarcely  exceeded  by  the 
abolitionists  themselves.  Indeed  many  of  the  latter 
were  leaders  in  the  woman-suffrage  movement. 

The  close  connection  between  woman  suffrage  and  the 
abolition  movement  cannot  be  too  greatly  emphasized. 
Negro  suffrage  was  not  dwelt  upon  to  any  great  extent, 
but  rather  woman  was  compared  to  the  slave  because 
of  her  common-law  disabilities.  That  was  the  point  of 
contact.  After  the  Civil  War  the  women  no  longer 
linked  their  cause  with  that  of  the  negro.  They  were 
not  vitally  concerned  about  suffrage  for  him  either 
before  the  war  or  afterward.  Like  other  advocates  who 
went  before  them  they  supported  the  principle  of  uni- 
versal suffrage  only  in  so  far  as  it  furthered  their  particu- 
lar interests,  and  they  simply  exploited  the  negro  as  a 
slave  to  arouse  sympathy  for  themselves.  There  was 
really  no  essential  connection  between  woman  suffrage 
and  the  negro  problem;  but  the  negro  was  used  for  all 
he  was  worth  nevertheless.^ 

^  At  one  of  the  suffrage  conventions  a  negro  woman  spoke  from  the 
platform  amid  hisses  and  turmoil.  She  enjoyed  considerable  notoriety 
and  was  known  as  Sojourner  Truth.  The  authors  have  this  to  say  of 
the  incident:  "Sojourner  combined  in  herself,  as  an  individual,  the 
two  most  hated  elements  of  humanity.  She  was  black  and  she  was  a 
woman,  and  all  the  insults  that  could  be  cast  upon  color  and  sex  were 
together  hurled  at  her;  but  there  she  stood,  calm  and  dignified,  a  grand, 
wise  woman,  who  could  neither  read  nor  write,  and  yet  with  deep 
insight  could  penetrate  the  very  soul  of  the  universe  about  her." — 
Stanton  et  d.j  op.  cit.,  p.  567. 


Beginnings  of  Woman  Suffrage  145 

In  addition  to  holding  conventions  of  their  own  the 
women  devoted  a  great  deal  of  attention  to  constitu- 
tional conventions  and  state  legislatures.  They  went 
to  Kansas,  they  worked  in  Ohio,  they  spent  much  time 
in  Massachusetts.  But  their  progress  in  these  con- 
ventions was  almost  negligible  and  cannot  be  dwelt  upon 
here.  In  the  state  legislatures  they  always  found  mem- 
bers to  present  their  petitions,  and  these  were  referred 
to  committees  and  usually  stayed  there.  Sometimes 
these  petitions  gave  an  opportunity  for  coarse  and 
vulgar  jesting,  at  other  times  they  were  received  with 
great  annoyance  and  asperity,  and  occasionally  a  digni- 
fied and  courteous  hearing  was  given.  But  the  result 
was  always  the  same.     No  serious  debate  ever  developed. 

It  can  now  be  seen  that  the  women  had  made  a  good 
start  on  the  road  to  suffrage.  Their  conventions  were 
a  permanent  institution,  they  had  organizations  in  many 
of  the  states,  they  had  able  writers  and  speakers  adver- 
tising their  cause  all  over  the  North.  (They  seem  to 
have  made  no  attempt  to  penetrate  the  South.)  Their 
cause  was  ridiculed  everywhere.  It  had  not  yet  been 
developed  to  a  point  where  the  real  issues  could  be  tried, 
but  that  time  was  fast  approaching.  Thus  the  matter 
stood  at  the  outbreak  of  the  Civil  War,  and  after  that 
event  two  great  conspicuous  suffrage  movements  went 
forward  side  by  side:  (i)  the  expansion  of  the  suffrage 
to  include  the  women,  and  (2)  the  disfranchising  of  the 
negro.  But  there  are  a  few  loose  ends  to  be  caught  up 
before  the  problems  of  the  war  are  discussed. 

It  will  be  recalled  that  early  in  the  century  when  the 
property  test  was  giving  way  many  of  the  states  did  not 
include  even  residence  requirements  in  their  suffrage  laws. 


146  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

much  less  restrictions  on  soldiers,  students,  criminals, 
etc.  The  property  test  automatically  excluded  a  great 
many  who  proved  to  be  undesirable  when  the  old  pro- 
hibitions no  longer  kept  them  from  the  polls. 

First  among  the  groups  to  be  proscribed  were  the 
soldiers,  sailors,  and  marines  in  the  United  States  Army 
or  Navy.     There  was  great  danger  in  permitting  these 
men  to  vote  in  the  localities  where  they  might  be  situated, 
because  frequently  it  would  happen  that  a  large-enough 
number  would  be  in  the  vicinity  of  a  town  completely 
to  dominate  and  control  local  politics.     It  is  unneces- 
sary to  point  out  the  serious  objections  to  permitting 
soldiers  to  vote  under  these  circumstances.     At  this 
/  particular  time,  just  before  the  war,  twenty-one  states 
j   out  of  the  total  thirty-four  excluded  soldiers  by  the 
>s^  1  expedient  of  not  permitting  them  to  gain  a  residence  by 
i  reason  of  being  stationed  in  the  state. 

For  somewhat  similar  reasons  it  is  frequently  con- 
.  sidered  necessary  to  exclude  from  the  suffrage  students 
;  located  at  institutions  of  learning.  Ordinarily  they  have 
no  intention  of  establishing  permanent  residence,  and 
their  interest  in  local  politics  is  but  transitory.  Since 
only  seven  states  excluded  them  from  suffrage  it  would 
seem  that  the  problem  was  not  serious  at  this  time.  In 
1845  a  contested  election  brought  the  issue  up  in  Con- 
gress relative  to  some  Princeton  students.'  A  com- 
mittee investigated  the  matter  and  its  report  covers  the 
merits  of  the  problem  in  a  thoroughgoing  way.  But  it 
is  really  not  a  question  of  great  significance. 

The  insane,  idiots,  persons  ncn  compos  mentis,  and 
those  under  guardianship  presented  another  problem. 

^  Reports  of  Committees,   First  Session,  Twenty-ninth   Congress, 
Vol.  II,  No.  310. 


Beginnings  of  Woman  Suffrage  147 

These  persons  are  not  competent  to  vote  anyway,  and 
it  is  not  necessary  to  exclude  them/  However,  the 
practice  has  always  been  very  general,  and  even  before 
the  war  fourteen  states  specifically  barred  them. 

Paupers  and  inmates  of  public  institutions  such  as 
almshouses,  poor  farms,  and  other  asylums  maintained 
at  public  expense  had  to  be  specifically  excluded  if  / 
they  were  to  be  kept  from  voting,  although  only  fifteen! 
states  did  exclude  them.  The  simple  phrase  excluding 
*' paupers"  is  almost  impossible  to  interpret.  It  is  hard 
to  tell  when  a  mere  loafer  or  beggar  becomes  an  out-and- 
out  pauper,  and  whether  or  not  a  person  receiving 
private  charity  is,  strictly  speaking,  a  pauper.  Nearly 
all  the  states  excluding  them  simply  used  that  indefinite 
term.  It  would  seem  that  many  problems  would  be 
circumvented  if  the  constitution  were  simply  to  say  that 
all  inmates  of  public  asylums  should  be  disfranchised. 
That  would  solve  the  real  problem,  would  prevent 
officials  from  exploiting  the  inmates  of  institutions  for 
their  own  purposes,  and  would  probably  reach  almost 
all  who  should  be  reached. 

As  to  criminals,  there  was  great  diversity  of  practice. 
Nineteen  of  the  states  disfranchised  them  in  one  way 
or  another.  Conviction  of  infamous  crimes  or  peni- 
tentiary offenses  were  usually  named  first  as  being  cause 
for  permanent  exclusion  from  the  suffrage.  Perjury, 
forgery,  bribery,  and  larceny  were  frequently  added  to 
the  list,  but  as  they  are  usually  punishable  by  peniten- 
tiary sentence  there  would  seem  to  be  small  cause  for 
the  list.  Further,  it  is  interesting  to  find  dueling  men- 
tioned so  many  times.  A  great  many  of  the  states  were 
trying  to  make  use  of  their  suffrage  laws  in  stamping 

*  Mechem,  Public  Officers,  p.  102. 


148 


Suffrage  in  the  United  States 


TABLE  III 

Essential  Qualifications  in  i860 


Residence 

1 

> 

Groups  Specifically 
Excluded 

State 

tn 

H 

§ 

0 

1 

1 
1 

3 

S 

1 

U3 

en 

.2 

2 

• 

1 

1 

Alabama 

I  yr. 
6  mos. 
6  mos. 

3  mos. 

X 
X 

V 

Arkansas 

California 

I  mo. 
6  mos. 
I  mo. 
6  mos. 
6  mos. 

y/ 

X 

X 

X 

V 

Connecticut 

Delaware 

I  yr. 
I  yr. 

X 
X 

X 

X 

V 

Florida 

V 

Georgia 

Illinois 

I  yr. 

X 
X 
X 
X 

V 

Indiana.  .  . 

X 

V 

Iowa 

6  mos. 
6  mos. 
2  yrs. 
I  yr. 

x^ 

X 
X 

x' 

V 

Kansas 

I  mo. 
I  mo. 
6  mos. 
3  mos. 
6  mos. 
6  mos. 

X 

V 

Kentucky 

Louisiana 

60  days 

X 

Maine 

X 

X 

X 

X 
X 

X 

X 

X 
X 
X 

Maryland 

Massachusetts.  .  . 

I  yr. 
I  yr. 
6  mos. 
6  mos. 
I  yr. 
I  yr. 

V 

X 

Michigan 

Minnesota 

X 
X 

X 
X 

V 

30  days 

X 

V 

Mississippi 

Missouri 

4  mos. 
3  mos. 

X 

New  Hampshire . . 

X 

X 
X 
X 

New  Jersey 

New  York 

I  yr. 
I  yr. 

5  mos. 
4  mos. 
I  yr. 

X 
X 

X 

X 

V 

X 

V 

North  Carolina. . . 

Ohio 

I  yr. 
6  mos. 
I  yr. 

1  yr. 

2  yrs. 

y 

X 
X 

x" 

V 

Oregon 

y 

X 

X 

X 

V 

Pennsylvania.  .  .  . 
Rhode  Island 

6  mos. 

10  days 

^ 

X 

X 
X 

X 

X 
X 

V 

South  Carolina . . . 

Tennessee 

6  mos. 
6  mos. 

X 

Texas 

I  yr. 

1  yr. 

2  yrs. 
I  yr. 

X 

X 

X 

Vermont 

X 

Virginia 

I  mo. 

X 
X 

X 
X 

X 

V 

Wisconsin   . 

X 

V 

I 

0>    C;  ^»7  15 


Beginnings  of  Woman  Suffrage  149 

out  this  evil  custom.  It  seems  a  little  ridiculous  to 
assume  that  fear  of  losing  suffrage  would  deter  a  man 
from  fighting  a  duel,  and  it  calls  to  mind  the  absurd 
law,  so  frequently  found,  which  seeks  to  punish  one  who 
attempts  suicide.     These  laws  are  somewhat  stultifying. 

The  residence  requirement  of  one  year  in  the  state 
was  almost  universal.  A  few  demanded  two  years,  and 
some  of  the  western  states  only  six  months.  Where  a 
a  variation  from  the  one-year  requirement  is  found 
it  is  pretty  sure  to  indicate  unusual  conditions.  Either 
the  state  was  very  conservative,  like  Virginia,  or  else 
was  particularly  eager  to  attract  immigrants. 

In  six  of  the  states  free  negroes  were  permitted  to 
vote,  and  in  five  states  aliens  enjoyed  the  franchise. 

Table  III  presents  the  important  facts  about  the 
suffrage  in  the  thirty-four  states  just  before  the  Civil 
War.  The  aim  has  been  to  bring  out  the  striking 
variations  from  the  normal;  further  details  would  be 
unessential  and  would  only  blur  the  salient  features.  A 
glance  at  the  table  will  show  that  many  states  were 
careless  in  the  matter  of  prescribing  residence  require- 
ments, especially  in  the  county  or  election  district,  and 
all  except  three  failed  to  exclude  at  least  one  of  the  five 
general  classes  usually  disfranchised:  soldiers,  students, 
the  insane,  paupers,  and  criminals.  In  later  years  the 
states  began  to  provide  in  their  constitutions  for  the 
registration  of  voters,  and  also  to  secure  purity  in  elec- 
tions by  regulating  campaign  contributions  and  intro- 
ducing corrupt-practices  legislation.  But  for  the  present 
it  is  enough  to  observe  that  the  table  shows  the  situation 
as  it  was  just  before  the  war. 


CHAPTER  VII 
SUFFRAGE  AND  THE  CIVIL  WAR 

The  Civil  War  was  a  greater  shock  to  the  normal 
development  of  suffrage  than  anything  that  has  come 
before  or  since.  Along  the  broadening  path  of  suffrage 
at  some  point  the  negro  was  sure  to  enter  in,  but  the 
fortunes  of  the  Civil  War  overturned  all  normal  processes 
that  were  at  work  to  bring  him  in  and  introduced  an 
artificial  element,  in  the  shape  of  coercive  legislation,  to 
a  degree  quite  out  of  harmony  with  the  legal  policy  fol- 
lowed up  to  this  time.  So  it  is  quite  necessary  that  con- 
siderable space  be  devoted  to  a  study  of  the  war  and 
the  reconstruction  period  in  order  that  its  precise  influ- 
ence upon  the  suffrage  franchise  may  be  given  proper 
weight. 

Before  the  negro  could  even  be  considered  as  a  fit 
subject  to  enjoy  suffrage  rights  he  must  be  freed  from 
bonds  of  slavery.  But  it  is  doubtful  if  many  of  those 
who  fought  so  ardently  to  free  the  negro  thought  one 
way  or  another  about  his  enjoyment  of  the  franchise 
later.  It  is  well  known,  of  course,  that  President  Lincoln 
was  loath  to  look  upon  the  issue  of  the  war  as  being 
slavery.  Preservation  of  the  Union  was  the  outstanding 
issue  in  his  mind,  and  only  when  pressed  to  it,  in  the 
latter  part  of  the  war,  did  he  come  out  with  a  definite 
policy  as  regarded  slavery.  He  tried  to  persuade  the 
people  to  look  on  the  war,  not  as  an  anti-slavery  crusade, 
but  rather  as  a  noble  effort  to  maintain  the  Union. 

150 


Suffrage  and  the  Civil  War  151 

But  it  was  not  long  before  the  exigencies  of  military 
occupation  in  the  South  brought  the  slavery  question 
up  in  such  a  way  as  to  demand  the  expression  of  a  policy 
on  the  part  of  the  administration.  It  came  ultimately 
in  the  Emancipation  Proclamation.  But  previous  to 
this  the  military  commanders  had  been  in  the  practice 
of  seizing  slaves  as  the  property  of  their  foe  and  promptly 
setting  them  free.  Gradually  this  practice  resulted  in 
building  up  a  group  that  was  a  new  factor  in  the  political 
organization  in  that  it  was  potentially  able  to  exercise 
the  suffrage.  A  negro  enslaved  was  not  much  of  a 
problem  when  it  came  to  determining  matters  of  political 
status;  but  a  negro  free  was  indeed  a  problem  until  he 
was  safely  fitted  into  his  niche  in  the  poKtical  structure 
of  the  community,  until  his  civil  rights  were  established 
and  suffrage  was  granted  to  him  or  withheld  from  him. 
The  policy  of  some  states,  as  has  been  seen,  was  to  recog- 
nize no  essential  difference  between  the  free  negro  and 
the  white  man,  but  not  many  were  ready  to  adopt  such 
a  simple,  easy  policy;  and  consequently  this  rapidly 
growing  factor  of  political  significance,  the  free  negro, 
demanded  the  determination  of  some  kind  of  policy  in 
the  matter  of  giving  him  a  status. 

Attention  should  be  given  for  a  moment  to  the 
steps  by  which  this  new  factor  came  into  being.  On 
January  i,  1863,  the  Emancipation  Proclamation  was 
in  force.  It  did  not  free  the  slaves  in  the  sense  in  which 
it  is  usually  believed.  The  President  had  no  power 
whatever  to  free  slaves.  The  proclamation  can  hardly 
be  considered  as  more  than  a  military  decree.  It 
announced  a  policy  of  disposing  of  the  enemy's  property.' 

^  W.  A.  Dunning,  Essays  on  Civil  War  and  Reconstruction,  p.  50. 


l/< 


152  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

Whenever  a  military  commander  got  possession  of  this 
particular  sort  of  property  belonging  to  the  foe,  it  was 
to  be  set  free.     Slavery  was  a  recognized  institution  in 
the  United  States  until  the  Thirteenth  Amendment  was 
.  (    passed ;  and  the  President's  proclamation  could  no  more 
i4  set  free  the  property  in  negroes  of  a  law-abiding  citizen 
t.  than  it  could  have  turned  loose  the  cattle  in  his  field. 
President  Lincoln  was  quite  aware  of  this,  of  course,  and 
never  made  a  pretense  that  his  proclamation  did  more 
than  set  at  liberty  the  property  seized  from  those  who 
were  in  insurrection.     It  almost  compromised  him  in  his 
policy  of  not  recognizing  the  southerners  as  legitimate, 
foreign  enemies — but  that  cannot  be  dealt  with  here. 
\       Suffice  it  that  the  practical  effect  was   to   swell  im- 
measurably the  ranks  of  free  negroes.     At  the  same 
[     time  Tennessee,  the  loyal  parts  of  Virginia  and  Louisiana, 
\    and  the  border  states  were  not  affected.     Secessionists 
'  \    could  have  retained  their  slaves  by  returning  to  the 
-  Union,  so  far  as  the  proclamation  was  concerned. 

Furthermore,  the  proclamation  acted  as  a  wedge  to 
split  apart  those  who  looked  upon  preservation  of  the 
Union  as  the  only  issue  and  the  abolitionists  who  be- 
lieved that  the  whole  fundamental  purpose  of  the  struggle 
was  to  put  an  end  to  slavery.  It  crystallized  sentiment, 
I  and  from  January,  1863,  until  the  end  of  the  war  the 
anti-slavery  idea  grew  until  there  could  be  no  doubt 
that  the  victory  of  northern  arms  would  mean  universal 
freedom  for  the  negro.  In  June,  1864,  at  Mr.  Lincoln's 
behest,  the  Republican  party  stood  against  slavery  in 
its  platform,  and  in  his  first  address  to  Congress,  Decem- 
ber, 1864,  immediately  following  his  election,  he  sug- 
L  gested  a  constitutional  amendment  to  abolish  slavery. 


vi 


Suffrage  and  the  Civil  War  153 

When  it  passed  Congress,  January  31,  1865,  he  was  very 
much  pleased  and  regarded  it  as  a  culmination  of  his 
work.  Hence  at  this  time  there  emerged  a  problem  of 
future  years:  how  to  fix  the  status  of  the  new  group  in 
the  political  structure,  and  more  particularly  whether 
to  give  this  group  the  suffrage  or  not. 

If  it  had  been  possible  to  carry  out  the  plan  of 
President  Lincoln  the  story  of  the  suffrage  would  indeed 
have  been  different.  It  is  familiar  to  every  student  of 
the  Civil  War  period  that  President  Lincoln  chose  not 
to  recognize  the  principle  of  secession.  He  maintained 
that  no  state  had  the  power  to  secede;  in  a  word,  no 
state  could  secede.  What  really  happened  at  the  time 
of  the  breaking  of  peaceful  relations  was  that  a  very 
large  number  of  individuals  in  the  South  united  in 
insurrection  against  the  federal  government.  The 
states  did  not  withdraw  from  the  Union — that  could 
not  be — ^but  the  states  were  left  mere  skeletons,  still 
standing,  ready  to  be  filled  in  at  any  time  by  loyal  men 
who  would  put  the  normal  state  government  machinery 
in  operation  once  again  and  resume  relations  with  the 
federal  government.  In  the  meantime  it  was  the  busi- 
ness of  northern  arms  to  force  the  rebellious  citizens  of 
the  South  into  proper  observance  of  the  law. 

It  will  not  be  attempted  here  to  do  full  justice  to 
Mr.  Lincoln's  theory  about  secession.  Just  a  hint  of 
it  is  given.  But  it  will  be  seen  that  in  accord  with  this 
theory  whenever  normal  government  institutions  could 
be  set  up  in  those  states  working  in  proper  harmony  with 
the  federal  government  there  could  no  longer  be  a 
pretense  of  secession.  Thus  on  December  8,  1863,  the 
President  issued  a  proclamation  stating  that  he  was 


154  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

ready  to  recognize  any  state  government  put  in  opera- 
tion by  lo  per  cent  of  the  state's  population  if  it  were 
loyal  to  the  federal  government.  The  idea  was  simple 
enough  and  could  have  been  easily  worked  out.^  As  the 
resistance  of  the  South  broke  down  and  larger  portions 
of  the  territory  came  under  northern  control,  govern- 
ments could  have  been,  and  were,  set  up  which  could 
reasonably  be  looked  upon  as  legitimate  state  govern- 
ments restored. 

The  fate  of  suffrage  under  such  circumstances  can 
easily  be  imagined.  Slavery  would  have  been  abolished 
and  the  free  negro  would  have  been  a  political  problem. 
But  each  state  would  have  dealt  with  the  problem  just 
as  the  practice  had  been  before  the  war.  Suffrage 
always  was  a  matter  for  exclusive  state  control.  Each 
state  would  have  adjusted  its  suffrage  laws,  if  indeed 
that  were  necessary,  to  solve  the  problem  of  the  free 
negro.  Needless  to  say  he  would  have  been  permanently 
disfranchised  by  every  southern  state.  Then  would  the 
work  of  broadening  the  suffrage  to  include  him  have 
gone  on  just  as  it  had  before  the  war  and  with  regard 
to  other  classes  seeking  the  franchise.  It  would  have 
been  necessary  to  plead  the  cause  of  the  free  negro  in 
each  state,  just  as  woman  suffrage  is  being  sought  today 
in  the  legislative  halls  of  all  the  states. 

But  Mr.  Lincoln  died  and  all  his  plans  went  wrong. 
The  task  of  carrying  out  his  policy  fell  to  the  hands  of 
President  Johnson,  a  man  who  did  not  enjoy  the  con- 
fidence and  respect  of  Congress  to  the  same  degree  as 
did  Mr.  Lincoln.  But  he  promptly  set  to  work  to 
reorganize  the  South  as  his  predecessor  meant  to  do. 

*  W.  A.  Dunning,  Essays  on  Civil  War  and  Reconstrtiction,  p.  66. 


Swjffrage  and  the  Civil  War  155 

He  aimed  to  establish  competent  govermnents  in  the 
southern  states,  supported  by  a  sufficient  number  of 
loyalists  to  make  them  effective.  To  this  end  provisional 
governors  were  appointed  in  each  state  to  superintend 
the  reorganizing  of  government  machinery.  He  stood 
ready  to  recognize  such  governments  as  soon  as  circum- 
stances would  permit  and  hoped  it  might  be  soon. 

When  finally  all  the  South  came  under  the  Presi- 
dent's military  command,  all  the  slaves  became  free 
under  the  operation  of  the  Emancipation  Proclamation. 
They  were  then  a  factor  to  be  considered  in  reorganizing 
the  governments  which  President  Johnson  expected  to 
recognize  as  the  legitimate,  restored  state  governments. 
Was  the  negro  to  have  a  hand  in  this  reorganization? 
On  May  29,  1865,  the  President  issued  an  Amnesty 
Proclamation^  relieving  so-called  rebels  of  all  disabilities 
consequent  upon  their  disloyalty  and  restoring  to  them 
all  their  property  except  slaves.  This  proclamation 
requested  those  who  would  seek  amnesty  to  subscribe 
to  a  simple  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  national  govern- 
ment. It  also  included  a  long  list  of  persons  who  were 
to  be  excluded  from  the  benefit  of  amnesty.  They  were 
chiefly  men  who  had  been  officers  of  the  federal  govern- 
ment, congressmen  representing  southern  states,  a  large 
number  of  state  officers,  and  particularly  any  who  had 
held  office  in  the  Confederacy.  These  men  were  not 
permitted  to  vote  in  the  reorganization  of  the  state  \ 
governments.  The  provisional  governors  took  the  list 
in  the  Amnesty  Proclamation  to  guide  them  in  cutting 
down  the  suffrage.  As  to  the  free  negroes,  they  were  7 
not  allowed  to  vote,  because  in  the  absence  of  any  other  * 
^  Edward  McPherson,  Documents  on  Reconstruction,  p.  9. 


y 


156  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

logical  standard  the  suffrage  laws  of  the  individual  states 
in  operation  just  before  the  war  were  used  to  determine 
suffrage  qualifications  for  the  purpose  of  reorganization, 
and  these  earlier  constitutions  universally  excluded  the 
negro.  So  it  happened  that  reorganization  was  to  pro- 
ceed based  on  a  suffrage  as  it  existed  before  the  war, 
minus  those  on  the  proscribed  list  of  the  Amnesty 
Proclamation. 

It  is  just  to  say  of  President  Johnson  that  he  was  in 
some  doubt  himself  as  to  who  should  be  electors  at  this 
time.  And  yet  there  was  no  valid  reason  in  law  why 
the  old  state  constitutions  excluding  negroes  should  not 
be  in  full  operation.  Such  an  interpretation  was  strictly 
consistent  with  the  policy  outlined  by  President  Lincoln. 
The  states  had  never  been  out  of  the  Union  and  their 
legal  systems  were  not  dislocated.  Now  when  it  was 
necessary  to  call  the  electorate  into  action  there  could  be 
no  more  logical  step  than  to  apply  the  existing  law. 
This  was  done  in  spite  of  the  importunities  of  prominent 
men  in  Congress  and  government  circles,  Charles 
Sumner  and  Judge  Chase  being  conspicuous  among 
them.  These  men  believed  that  the  negro  should  be 
given  the  ballot. 

Throughout  the  year  of  1865  the  provisional  gov- 
ernors carried  out  the  administration  plan.  The  pro- 
scribed persons  were  excluded  from  participation,  and 
the  former  suffrage  laws  were  applied  with  slight  modi- 
fications. Every  attempt  was  made  to  live  up  to  the 
spirit  of  the  administration  plan.  Naturally  there  was 
a  great  deal  of  resentment  on  the  part  of  men  who  had 
been  heart  and  soul  in  the  Rebellion,  and  as  these  men 
were  the  most  able  statesmen  to  be  found  in  the  South, 


Suffrage  and  the  Civil  War  157 

the  work  of  these  conventions  of  1865  was  left  to  less 
skilful  hands.  But  the  tasks  before  them  were  not 
especially  dijQacult.  So  far  as  President  Johnson  was 
concerned,  the  only  offensive  thing  to  be  found  in  the 
old  constitutions  would  be  clauses  recognizing  or  imply- 
ing the  existence  of  slavery.  They  were  expected,  of 
course,  to  conform  to  the  proposed  Thirteenth  Amend- 
ment, which  had  passed  Congress  on  January  31,  1865, 
but  as  that  had  nothing  to  do  with  suffrage  the  same 
franchise  laws  as  formerly  existed  could  be  perpetuated. 

Arkansas  was  the  first  state  to  respond  to  the  admin- 
istration's invitation  to  reorganize  and  return  to  the  fold. 
A  convention  met  in  January,  1864,  following  occupation 
by  the  federal  troops.  Work  proceeded  under  the  pro- 
visional governor.  The  convention  declared  null  and 
void  the  former  ordinance  of  secession  and  prepared  a 
constitution  under  which  it  was  expected  that  the  state 
would  resume  normal  functions.  The  suffrage  clause 
was  very  brief  and  restricted  the  suffrage  to  whites  only. 

Next  came  Virginia,  in  February,  1864.  This  con- 
vention was  composed  of  delegates  representing  that 
portion  of  Virginia  which  had  remained  loyal  to  the 
federal  government.  This  was  within  the  Union  lines 
and  had  not  been  included  in  the  new  state  of  West 
Virginia.  This  convention  expected  to  draft  a  con- 
stitution, be  recognized  as  the  legitimate  state  of  Vir- 
ginia, and  resume  normal  relations  with  the  federal 
government.  It  added  a  Httle  to  the  old  suffrage  laws. 
Negroes  were  excluded,  of  course,  but  the  convention 
listed  the  persons  who  later  were  specifically  excluded 
from  the  operation  of  the  President's  Amnesty  Proc- 
lamation and  undertook  permanently  to  disfranchise 


158  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

them.  In  addition,  everyone  who  would  vote  was 
required  to  subscribe  to  an  oath  denying  any  participa- 
tion in  the  Rebellion.  The  only  other  feature  worthy 
of  note  is  that  all  taxes  assessed  after  this  constitution 
went  in  force  must  be  paid  if  a  person  wished  to  exercise 
the  franchise. 

Louisiana  was  the  third  state  to  take  advantage  of 
the  administration's  program.  In  April,  1864,  a  con- 
vention met  under  the  authority  of  the  military  com- 
mander. No  oath  and  no  taxpaying  qualification  were 
established  and  no  persons  were  specifically  excluded, 
which  facts  exhibited  a  generous  attitude  toward  the 
secessionists,  whom  some  of  the  other  states  were 
proscribing.     Negro  suffrage  was  not  granted. 

It  was  not  found  necessary  to  hold  a  convention 
in  Tennessee,  and  no  new  constitution  was  formed  in 
that  state  until  1870.  But  on  June  5,  1865,  the  Ten- 
nessee legislature  then  sitting,  which  was  loyal  to  the 
federal  government,  passed  a  franchise  act^  stating  that 
every  white  man  publicly  known  to  have  entertained 
unconditional  union  sentiments  since  the  outbreak  of 
the  Rebellion  should  enjoy  the  franchise.  It  specifi- 
cally excluded  those  who  were  in  armed  rebellion 
(unless  conscripted),  those  who  would  not  subscribe 
to  an  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  federal  government,  and 
also  those  who  were  excluded  by  the  President  in  his 
Amnesty  Proclamation  issued  the  month  before.  It 
should  be  understood  that  while  the  list  of  proscribed 
persons  in  this  proclamation  were  very  properly  excluded 
from  suffrage  in  organizing  the  new  governments  there 
was  no  very  good  reason  why  the  conventions  should 

^  Edward  McPherson,  Documents  on  Reconstntction,  p.  27. 


Suffrage  and  the  Civil  War  159 

perpetuate  this  disability  in  constitutions  which  were 
intended  to  be  permanent.  However,  to  many  men  the 
Amnesty  Proclamation  seemed  to  be  an  invitation  to  do 
that  very  thing.  Even  at  this  early  date  there  was  a  {<^.j 
sentiment  in  Tennessee  favoring  the  extension  of  the  ' 
suffrage  to  the  negro.  A  measure  was  brought  up  in 
the  senate  in  May,  1865,  proposing  to  do  this  and  to  ^ 
apply  an  educational  test  after  1875.^  But  it  was 
defeated  sixteen  to  five,  as  might  have  been  expected. 
It  is  worth  noting  too  that  Tennessee  was  one  of  only 
two  of  the  southern  states  which  at  this  period  extended 
suffrage  to  the  foreigner  after  he  had  declared  his  inten- 
tion of  becoming  naturalized.  South  Carolina  was  the 
other.  Tennessee  enjoyed  a  somewhat  different  status 
from  the  other  ten  seceding  states  and  stood  in  better 
grace  with  Congress.  Tennessee  was  admitted  into 
the  Union  once  more  in  July,  1866,  two  years  before 
any  of  the  others,  and  without  being  forced  to  take  the 
bitter  medicine  of  reconstruction  which  Congress  pro- 
ceeded to  administer  in  the  spring  of  1867. 

North  Carolina  also  did  not  hold  a  constitutional 
convention  in  1865,  as  did  all  the  other  states  excepting 
Tennessee,  but  simply  called  a  constituent  assembly  for 
the  purpose  of  drafting  an  ordinance  prohibiting  slavery. 
This  was  properly  ratified  by  the  people,  and  it  was 
expected  that  North  Carolina  could  renew  normal  rela- 
tions without  further  reorganization.  This  assembly, 
it  may  be  noted  also,  adopted  a  resolution  aimed  to 
abolish  the  taxpaying  suffrage  qualification  for  the  next 
election.^ 

^  Ibid.,  p.  28. 

*  N.C.  Conv.,  1865,  Journal,  p.  37. 


i6o  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

In  September,  1865,  Alabama  and  South  Carolina 
held  conventions.  Both  of  them  repealed  the  ordinances 
of  secession  and  expected  to  return  to  the  Union  under 
their  slightly  altered  constitutions.  No  significant 
changes  appear  in  the  suffrage  requirements. 

In  October,  1865,  Georgia  and  Florida  held  conven- 
tions and  doctored  up  their  constitutions  in  the  expecta- 
tion of  being  received  by  the  Union.  Their  suffrage 
laws  remained  unaltered.  Secessionists  were  not  dis- 
franchised as  they  had  been  in  Virginia  and  Tennessee, 
and  no  new  privileges  were  extended  to  foreigners.  It 
/  may  be  noted  that  Georgia  continued  the  requirement 
that  in  order  to  vote  one  must  have  paid  all  taxes 
assessed  against  him  the  preceding  year. 

Texas  was  the  last  of  the  states  to  seek  readmission 
under  the  administration  plan.  It  was  not  until  March, 
1866,  that  a  convention  was  held,  the  ordinance  of  seces- 
sion declared  void,  and  a  constitution  set  up  which  it 
was  thought  would  be  acceptable.  They  perpetuated 
the  same  suffrage  provisions. 

Mississippi  did  not  attempt  a  new  constitution  until 
1868,  when  the  reconstruction  laws  of  Congress  were  in 
force. 

President  Johnson  was  well  pleased  with  the  action 
of  these  conventions.  Nearly  all  the  seceding  states  had 
formed  new  constitutions,  and  those  that  had  not  really 
did  not  need  them.  Slavery  was  abolished,  ordinances 
of  secession  were  declared  null  and  void,  the  Union  was 
recognized,  and  loyal  governments  were  ready  to  resume 
normal  relations  with  the  northern  states.  President 
Johnson  felt  that  the  formal  work  of  reconstruction  was 
complete,  and  that  Congress  should  receive  the  now 


Sufrage  and  the  Civil  War  i6i 

loyal  states.  On  December  i8,  1865,  he  sent  a  special 
message  to  Congress  stating  that  in  his  opinion  North 
Carolina,  South  Carolina,  Alabama,  Georgia,  Missis- 
sippi, Louisiana,  Arkansas,  and  Tennessee  were  fit  to  be 
admitted,  saying  that  *'as  a  result  of  measures  instituted 
by  the  executive  ....  [these  states]  are  yielding 
obedience  to  the  laws  and  government  of  the  United 
States.''^  They  had  all  passed  the  Thirteenth  Amend- 
ment except  Mississippi,  wherein  no  constituent  assembly 
had  yet  convened.  The  President  justly  thought  that 
he  had  been  very  successful  to  reorganize  these  states 
within  a  year,  and  he  was  now  reporting  his  success  to 
Congress. 

But  now  came  the  break.  The  executive,  perfectly 
consistent  with  the  plan  originally  outlined  by  President 
Lincoln,  had  paid  no  attention  to  the  question  of  negro 
suffrage.  His  theory  of  secession  would  scarcely  have 
permitted  him  to  do  so.  Nothing  had  occurred  to 
abridge  the  power  of  the  individual  states  to  fix  their 
own  suffrage  laws  as  they  always  had  done.  President 
Johnson  made  no  attempt  to  intrude  where  he  believed 
the  federal  government  had  no  authority.  So  here 
were  these  recalcitrant  states  knocking  at  the  door  of 
Congress,  with  President  Johnson  as  their  sponsor,  most 
of  them  with  new  constitutions  and  evidences  of  loyalty, 
good  intentions,  and  a  desire  to  resume  normal  relations. 
But  not  one  of  them  had  provided  for  negro  suffrage. 
Congress  took  great  umbrage  at  this  fact,  staked,  and 
would  have  nothing  to  do  with  Mr.  Johnson's  proteges. 

This  attitude  of  Congress  was  not  wholly  unexpected. 
Johnson  knew  that  a  very  decided  opinion  prevailed  in 

^  McPherson,  op.  cit.,  p.  66. 


i62  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

favor  of  negro  suffrage,  and  the  matter  was  repeatedly 
brought  to  his  attention.  Time  and  again  he  was 
obHged  to  declare  himself  on  the  issue  of  negro  suffrage 
and  to  state  his  policy  toward  the  southern  states  in  his 
plan  of  reconstruction.  He  did  not  personally  believe 
in  negro  suffrage.^  He  did  not  think  that  the  negro  had 
any  political  capacity,  and  abstract  theories  of  right 
did  not  .concern  him.  But,  what  was  more  important 
still,  he  did  not  believe  that  he  had  any  power  to  secure 
their  enfranchisement.  This  opinion  he  expressed  many 
times  and  with  considerable  force. 

As  early  as  June,  1864,  in  an  address  at  Nashville,  he 
gave  out  a  hint  of  his  ideas  as  to  the  suffrage  policy  that 
should  be  pursued  in  the  South.''  It  is  significant  that 
while  he  favored  eliminating  many  of  the  Confederates, 
he  had  no  serious  thought  of  injecting  the  negro  into 
politics.  In  justifying  the  position  which  found  expres- 
sion later  in  the  Amnesty  Proclamation,  excluding  many 
southerners,  he  said:  *'If  we  are  so  cautious  about 
foreigners  [making  them  wait  for  the  suffrage]  .  .  .  . 
who  voluntarily  renounce  their  homes  to  live  with  us, 
what  should  we  say  to  the  traitor  who,  although  born 
and  reared  among  us,  has  raised  a  parricidal  hand  against 
the  government  which  always  protected  him?"  In  the 
attitude  impHed  by  this  statement  he  was  heartily  sup- 
ported on  all  sides  in  the  North.  But  when  the  actual 
time  came  for  setting-up  new  constitutions  in  1865  he 
was  obliged  to  declare  himself  on  the  negro  question  as 
well.  His  personal  opinion  is  well  known,  but  the 
insistent  clamor  from  many  sources  caused  him  to  con- 

^  W.  A.  Dunning,  Recanstruction,  Political  and  Economic,  p.  38. 
'  McPherson,  op.  cit.,  p.  46. 


Suffrage  and  the  Civil  War  163 

sider  at  least  the  possibility  of  departing  a  little  from  his 
convictions.  A  letter  he  wrote  to  Provisional  Governor 
Sharkey  in  August,  1865,  illustrates  well  his  uneasy 
feeling  about  negro  suffrage.^    He  said: 

If  you  could  extend  the  elective  franchise  to  all  persons  of 
color  who  can  read  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  in 
English  and  write  their  names,  and  to  all  persons  of  color  who 
own  real  estate  valued  at  more  than  $250.00,  and  pay  taxes 
thereon,  you  would  completely  disarm  the  adversary  and  set  an 
example  the  other  states  would  follow. 

Now  such  a  move  was  deliberately  inconsistent  with 
his  theory  and  his  policy.  He  did  not  think  that  he  had 
any  right  to  foist  negro  suffrage  on  the  southern  states, 
but  he  knew  that  the  Republicans  of  the  North  demanded 
it.  And  it  will  be  observed  that  in  his  letter  he  enter- 
tains the  hope  that  an  example  can  be  set  which  other 
states  will  follow.  He  did  not  want  to  compromise 
himself  by  using  coercion  in  the  matter,  especially  when 
he  did  not  believe  in  negro  suffrage,  but  he  did  seem  to 
hope  that  the  southern  states  would  take  the  incubus 
upon  themselves.  In  this,  of  course,  he  was  badly 
mistaken. 

Not  only  did  he  have  northern  Republican  senti- 
ment to  deal  with,  but  the  more  intelligent  negroes 
themselves  were  active.  They  confidently  hoped  that 
he  would  do  much  for  them,  and  a  delegation  came  to 
wait  upon  him  at  the  White  House  in  February,  1866, 
expecting  that  he  would  help  them  to  get  the  suffrage.'' 
They  apparently  believed  that  negro  suffrage  could  be 
achieved  simply  by  an  executive  order,  or  at  least  by 
congressional  action.     Their  arguments  were  verbose, 

^  Jbid.^  p.  19,  ?  Jbid,,  p,  53. 


164  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

and  they  advanced  the  usual  points  about  equality, 
taxation,  and  representation,  government  by  consent 
of  the  governed,  etc.  The  President  assumed  a  con- 
fidential manner  toward  them  and  tried  to  convince 
them  first  of  the  unwisdom  of  granting  negro  suffrage 
even  if  it  could  be  done  by  federal  action,  but  finally 
took  refuge  in  the  legal  theory  that  he  could  not  help 
them,  for  suffrage  was  a  matter  which  the  states  must 
decide  for  themselves.  Unquestionably  Johnson  had 
the  best  of  it  in  spite  of  the  contentions  of  such  men  as 
Sumner  and  Chase.  The  logic  of  his  position  was 
unassailable,  and  it  is  worth  remembering  that  it  was 
first  announced  by  no  less  a  person  than  Abraham 
.  Lincoln.  Suffrage  most  certainly  was  a  matter  for 
i  state  control,  and  Congress  itself  was  obliged  to  admit 
the  fact,  because  it  had  to  resort  to  constitutional 
Ljimendment  in  order  to  get  its  way.  The  very  fact 
that  this  was  necessary  is  the  best  proof  in  the  world 
that  Johnson  was  right,  and  he  did  well  to  stand  by  his 
convictions. 

But  the  President  had  to  fight  some  very  able  men. 
Judge  Chase  was  doing  all  he  could  to  force  negro 
suffrage  on  the  southern  states.  But  those  who  were 
on  the  ground  saw  the  unwisdom  of  it,  entirely  aside 
from  the  legal  aspect  of  the  case.  The  commanding 
military  officers  were  loath  to  try  the  experiment, 
Sherman  in  particular.^ 

^Official  Records,  War  of  the  Rebellion,  p.  411.  Major  General 
Sherman  in  a  letter  to  Chase,  May  6,  1865,  said  in  part:  "I  am  not  yet 
prepared  to  receive  the  negro  on  terms  of  political  equality  for  the 
reason  that  it  will  arouse  passion  and  prejudices  at  the  North,  which, 
superadded  to  the  causes  yet  dormant  at  the  South,  might  rekindle 
tlie  war  whose  fires  are  now  dying  out,  and  by  skilful  management 


Suffrage  and  the  Civil  War  165 

Other  commanders  too  had  to  thmk  seriously  about 
the  problem  of  negro  suffrage.  Judge  Chase  took  it 
upon  himself  to  write  a  letter  to  Major  General  Scho- 
field,  of  the  Department  of  North  Carolina,  in  the  spring 
of  1865,  in  which  he  urged  the  general  to  revive  the 
North  Carolina  constitution  of  1835,  which  contained 
no  provision  to  prevent  the  negro  from  voting,  and  pro- 
ceed under  that  constitution  instead  of  the  one  of  later 
date,  which  was  in  force  at  the  time  of  the  war  and  did 
exclude  the  negro/  Major  General  Schofield  was  in  a 
quandary  and  wrote  to  General  Grant  for  advice.  He 
told  about  having  received  a  letter  from  Judge  Chase 
and  said  that  his  own  understanding  of  the  matter  was 
that  the  federal  government  had  no  right  to  intercede 
in  the  matter  of  suffrage,  and  that  the  last  constitution, 
if  any,  was  in  force  in  North  Carolina.  He  could  see 
no  justification  for  reviving  the  constitution  of  1835. 
He  also  said  that  he  did  not  believe  that  the  negroes 
were  at  all  fit  for  the  suffrage. 

Thus  matters  stood  with  regard  to  negro  suffrage  at 
the  end  of  1865.  Most  of  the  southern  states  had  new 
constitutions,  but  not  one  of  them  provided  for  negro 
suffrage.  During  the  winter  of  1865-66  President 
Johnson  repeatedly  expressed  himself  as  of  the  opinion 
that  these  states  were  fully  restored  to  normal  condi- 
tions and  were  rightfully  entitled  to  representation  in 


might  be  kept  down.  I,  who  have  felt  the  past  war  as  bitterly  and 
keenly  as  any  man  could,  confess  myself  afraid  of  a  new  war,  and  a 
new  war  is  bound  to  result  from  the  action  you  suggest  of  giving  to 
the  negroes  so  large  a  share  in  the  delicate  task  of  putting  the  Southern 
States  in  practical  working  relations  with  the  general  government." 
»  McPherson,  op.  cil.,  p.  461. 


i66  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

Congress.  He  thought  that  there  was  nothing  to  stand 
in  the  way  of  southern  congressmen  taking  their  places  at 
once.  But  Congress  enhghtened  him  in  this  manner: 
"No  senator  or  representative  shall  be  admitted  into 
either  branch  of  Congress  from  any  of  said  states  until 
Congress  shall  have  declared  such  state  entitled  to  repre- 
sentation."^ This  is  part  of  a  resolution  passed  in  the 
House  of  Representatives,  February  20,  1866,  by  a  vote 
of  one  hundred  and  nine  to  four,  and  it  passed  the  Senate 
February  21,  twenty-eight  to  eighteen.  Here  was  a 
formidable  obstacle  indeed.  Congress  had  the  consti- 
tutional right  to  exclude  the  representatives  of  a  state 
if  it  chose  so  to  do. 

On  April  2,  1866,  the  President  issued  a  proclama- 
\  tion  declaring  the  Rebellion  at  an  end.  Then  there  was 
an  anomalous  situation — the  country  at  peace,  every 
state  with  a  legally  sound  constitution,  but  eleven  of 
them  being  denied  representation  in  Congress.  One  of 
the  ostensible  grounds  for  this  denial  was  that  the  said 
eleven  states  did  not  provide  negro  suffrage  in  their 
constitutions.  This  was  an  exceedingly  flimsy  basis  for 
Congress  to  fall  back  upon,  especially  in  view  of  the 
fact  that  all  but  six  of  the  northern  states  also  denied 
suffrage  to  the  negro.  But  Congress  was  in  an  ugly 
mood  and  did  not  have  to  be  consistent. 

Congress  refused  to  recognize  the  credentials  of  the 
representatives  from  the  southern  states  and  declared 
it  to  be  a  legislative  function  to  determine  when  a  state 
should  be  admitted.  It  held  that  the  President  had 
intruded  more  or  less  upon  the  legislature  when  he 
proceeded  with  his  plan  of  reconstruction,  and  that  the 

^  McPherson,  op.  ciL,  p.  72, 


Suffrage  and  the  Civil  War  167 

work  which  had  gone  on  during  1865  was  something  of 
an  affront  to  Congress.  So  it  snubbed  Johnson  and  his 
states.  It  was  very  necessary  to  do  something  at  once. 
The  nation  was  at  peace  and  yet  one-fourth  of  the  states 
were  not  represented.  But  Congress  had  a  little  plan  and 
showed  its  hand  in  the  summer  of  1866.  On  June  13, 
1866,  the  text  of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  was  passed.^^ 
The  first  section  of  the  article  made  sure  that  negroes 
were  citizens,  while  the  other  portions  meant  that  if  the 
southern  states  excluded  negroes  from  the  suffrage,  then 
representation  in  Congress  would  be  cut  down  propor- 
tionately. A  moment's  reflection  will  convince  one 
that  such  reduction  would  be  very  great  indeed.  This 
article,  then.  Congress  presented  to  the  southern  states 
which  were  seeking  admission,  and  said  that  if  they 
would  ratify  it  as  an  amendment  to  the  federal  Con- 
stitution they  would  be  admitted  at  once.  Incidentally 
it  might  be  mentioned  that  Congress  was  once  more  a 
little  inconsistent.  It  denied  that  the  states  organized 
by  Johnson  had  any  standing  whatever,  or  were  indeed 
states  at  all,  and  yet  Congress  assumed  them  to  be  com- 
petent to  ratify  a  proposed  amendment  to  the  federal 
Constitution.  But,  as  said  before.  Congress  did  not 
have  to  be  consistent. 

^  It  provided  that  "when  the  right  to  vote  at  any  election  for  the 
choice  of  electors  for  President  and  Vice-President  of  the  United  States, 
representatives  in  Congress,  the  executive  and  judicial  officers  of  a  state, 
or  the  members  of  the  legislature  thereof,  is  denied  to  any  of  the  male 
inhabitants  of  such  state,  being  twenty-one  years  of  age,  and  citizens 
of  the  United  States,  be  in  any  way  abridged,  except  for  participation 
in  rebellion,  or  other  crime,  the  basis  of  representation  therein  shall  be 
reduced  in  the  proportion  which  the  number  of  such  male  citizens  shall 
bear  to  the  whole  number  of  male  citizens  twenty-one  years  of  age  in 
such  state," 


mr-         4 

i68  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

Tennessee  acted  at  once,  ratified  the  proposed  amend- 
ment, and  was  readmitted  to  the  Union  on  July  24,  1866. 
As  might  have  been  expected,  however,  the  other  ten 
states  flatly  refused  to  accept  such  terms,  and  thereupon 
President  Johnson's  plan  of  reconstruction  was  utterly 
routed  and  his  work  had  come  to  naught. 

Through  the  fall  and  winter  of  1866  the  question  of 
negro  suffrage  was  hotly  debated  throughout  the  North; 
in  the  South  it  was  not  considered  debatable.  The 
purpose  of  the  proposed  Fourteenth  Amendment  was 
obvious  enough.  Some  took  it  literally  and  thought 
that  the  South  ought  to  be  willing  to  accept  a  reduction 
in  representation;  but  most  people  looked  upon  it  as  a 
step  to  coerce  the  South  into  granting  suffrage  to  the 
negro.  The  radicals  in  Congress  were  determined  upon 
this  issue.  Nothing  less  than  full  negro  suffrage  would 
satisfy  them.  The  works  of  Senator  Charles  Sumner,  of 
Massachusetts,  provide  excellent  information  concern- 
ing the  attitude  of  these  radical  Republicans.  He 
believed  that  Johnson  had  betrayed  his  party  in  coun- 
tenancing any  sort  of  reconstruction  without  negro 
suffrage.' 

In  one  of  his  letters  Sumner  says:  "It  is  impossible 
to  suppose  that  Congress  will  sanction  governments  in 
the  Rebel  States  which  are  not  founded  on  the  consent 

^  Works,  III,  315.  He  tells  of  an  interview  which  he  had  with 
Johnson  early  in  his  administration:  "I  ventured  to  press  upon  him  the 
duty  and  the  renown  of  carrying  out  the  principles  of  the  Declaration 
of  Independence,  and  of  founding  the  new  governments  in  the  Rebel 
States  on  the  consent  of  the  governed,  without  any  distinction  of  color. 
To  this  earnest  appeal  he  replied  on  one  occasion,  as  I  sat  with  him 
alone,  in  words  which  I  can  never  forget,  *0n  this  question,  Mr.  Sumner, 
there  is  no  difference  between  us;  you  and  I  are  alike.' "  If  Johnson 
did  indeed  say  this,  it  is  a  little  hard  to  reconcile  it  with  his  later  actions. 


Suffrage  and  the  Civil  War  169 

of  the  governed.  This  is  the  cornerstone  of  republican 
institutions.  Of  course,  by  Hhe  governed'  is  meant  all 
the  loyal  citizens,  without  distinction  of  color.  Any- 
thing else  is  mockery."^  Thus  when  Louisiana,  which 
was  one  of  the  first  states  to  seek  readmission,  came  up 
with  her  new  constitution  early  in  1865,  Senator  Sumner 
was  fiercely  indignant  and  denounced  Louisiana  in 
unmeasured  terms.  He  evidently  considered  the  con- 
vention which  drew  the  constitution  nothing  but  a  f arce.^ 
He  believed  that  its  business  was  all  arranged  before  the 
convention  ever  met,  and  that  it  was  dominated  by  the 
military  authorities,  who  were  unfavorable  to  negro 
suffrage  and  thoroughly  undemocratic.  He  was  angry, 
not  only  because  the  constitution  did  not  provide  for 
negro  suffrage,  but  because  the  negro  had  no  part  in 
organizing  the  convention  and  forming  the  constitution. 
This  was  because  the  old  constitution  had  been  used  to 
provide  the  suffrage  law.^  He  used  exceedingly  violent 
terms,  but  it  is  well  to  remember  that  his  remarks  might 
just  as  well  have  applied  to  many  northern  states.  If 
it  was  the  business  of  Congress  to  secure  negro  suffrage 
as  part  of  the  guaranty  of  republican  government,  it 
had  a  larger  task  North  than  it  did  South. 

Men  who  were  bitter  about  the  exclusion  of  the  negro 
in  the  reconstructed  states  were  very  likely  to  beg  the 
question  when  faced  with  the  legal  difficulties  of  the 

^  Ihid.,  p.  318. 

^Congressional  Globe,  Second  Session,  Thirty-eighth  Congress, 
p.  1129. 

3  He  said  concerning  the  Louisiana  case:  "The  United  States  are 
bound  by  the  constitution  to  guarantee  to  every  state  in  this  Union  a 
republican  form  of  government.  Now  when  called  to  perform  this 
guarantee,  it  is  proposed  to  recognize  an  oligarchy  of  skin." 


lyo  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

case.  When  Sumner  was  asked,  from  the  point  of  view 
of  constitutional  law,  if  the  federal  government  had  the 
power  to  deal  with  suffrage  in  any  state,  he  quoted  the 
"guarantee  republican  form  of  government  clause"  of 
the  Constitution  and  said  that  Congress  must  guarantee 
"complete  freedom  to  every  citizen,  immunity  from  all 
oppression,  and  absolute  equality  before  the  law,"  but 
he  did  not  say  anything  about  suffrage.  In  an  article 
which  he  published  in  the  Atlantic  Monthly,  December, 
1865,  he  evaded  the  real  difficulties  of  the  case  in  a 
flood  of  sarcasm  and  implied  denunciation:  "We  are 
gravely  told  that  the  national  power  which  decreed 
emancipation  cannot  maintain  it  by  assuring  universal 
suffrage."  Obviously  he  labored  under  a  serious  error. 
The  national  power  could  not  secure  emancipation  any 
more  than  it  could  secure  suffrage.  Real  emancipation 
did  not  come  about  until  the  Thirteenth  Amendment  to 
the  Constitution  was  ratified  (December  18,  1865). 
The  national  power  that  he  speaks  of,  presumably 
Congress  and  the  President,  could  not  free  a  single 
slave,  and  neither  could  they  give  a  single  man  the 
franchise.  President  Lincoln's  Emancipation  Proclama- 
tion very  much  befogged  the  minds  of  northerners;  he 
could  not  and  did  not  pretend  to  free  the  slaves  of  loyal 
citizens.  Now  here  was  another  situation  calculated 
to  befog  the  same  minds.  Congress  exercised  its 
technical  right  of  refusing  seats  in  Congress  to  repre- 
sentatives of  the  South,  and  it  almost  seems  as  if  it  could 
be  said  that  they  abused  this  technical  right  to  coerce 
states  which  happened  to  be  at  a  disadvantage  into 
doing  a  thing  which  Congress  never  would  have  thought 
it  possible  to  force  upon  a  loyal  state.    Negro  suffrage 


Suffrage  and  the  Civil  War  171 

had  to  come  in  so  far  as  it  did  come  by  means  of  a 
constitutional  amendment.  It  was  not  through  action 
of  the  national  government  that  negro  suffrage  came  to 
be.  Congress  blustered  aplenty  but  in  the  end  had  to 
appeal  to  the  people  of  the  states  to  pass  an  amendment 
in  order  to  secure  what  was  wanted.  But  in  the  mean- 
time it  was  necessary  for  Congress  to  deal  with  the  ten 
refractory  states;  and,  as  said  before,  the  technical 
right  to  exclude  representatives  provided  the  necessary 
lever  to  enforce  what  they  could  never  have  secured 
under  normal  circumstances. 

Congress  proceeded  on  the  assumption  that  the  states 
really  had  left  the  Union,  and  that  the  government  of  the 
territory  which  formerly  comprised  the  southern  states 
was  now  a  federal  function.  This  theory  was  not  con- 
sistently lived  up  to,  but  no  opprobrium  should  attach 
to  Congress  on  this  score,  for  to  have  followed  out  such 
a  doctrine  literally  would  have  been  a  very  difficult 
matter.  Congress  tacitly  recognized  the  de  facto  state 
governments  at  every  turn,  but  supported  the  fiction 
about  conquered  territory  in  order  to  give  some  color 
of  logic  to  the  coercive  measures  it  now  took  against 
the  South.  Judge  Chase  provided  the  best  legal  support 
Congress  could  boast  of  when  he  elaborated  the  doctrine 
that,  as  the  states  were  non-existent  and  the  federal 
government  was  in  possession  of  the  territory,  federal 
law  only  could  prevail  there.  In  view  of  real  conditions, 
however,  this  was  not  much  more  than  a  legal  fiction.^ 

When  Congress  opened  in  December,  1866,  the  actual 
details  of  organizing  in  the  South  governments  that 
would  be  acceptable  was  the  most  important  business 

^  J.  F.  Rhodes,  History  of  the  United  States,  V,  524. 


172  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

at  hand.  The  Republicans  were  pledged  to  a  negro- 
suffrage  policy.  Blaine  declared  the  fact  in  Congress 
and  demanded  the  incorporation  of  negro-suffrage 
clauses  in  all  the  southern  constitutions.^  It  is  inter- 
esting to  note,  however,  that  while  the  Republicans 
favored  negro  suffrage  for  the  South  and  had  come  to 
look  upon  it  as  a  natural  attribute  of  abohtion,  the  state 
elections  in  the  following  year  resulted  in  Ohio,  Michigan, 
Minnesota,  and  Kansas  all  turning  down  negro  suffrage 
at  the  polls.^  The  average  Republican,  it  would  seem, 
wanted  negro  suffrage,  but  he  wanted  it  in  the  South. 

It  has  been  pointed  out  by  Mr.  Blaine  that  at  this 
time  there  were  three  ways  open  for  Congress  to  deal 
with  the  South.3  The  first  was  to  recognize  the  govern- 
ments set  up  under  Johnson's  direction  during  1865. 
This  would  have  been  to  leave  to  these  states  the  exclu- 
sive control  of  suffrage,  such  as  every  other  state 
enjoyed;  but  in  the  opinion  of  the  radical  northerner 
this  would  have  been  to  give  up  those  things  for  which 
the  war  had  been  fought,  and  would  fail  to  punish  the 
offenders.  A  second  way  would  have  been  to  maintain 
for  an  indefinite  period  the  military  control  then  existing. 
But  this  suggestion  was  utterly  repugnant  to  American 
ideals.  North  as  well  as  South.  The  remaining  plan 
was  to  take  advantage  of  the  position  they  were  in  and 
force  the  southern  people  to  surrender  themselves  com- 
pletely to  negro  domination  before  they  could  be  ad- 
mitted to  the  Union.  This  is  what  was  done;  it  was 
an  unfortunate  policy  and  could  not  last,  but  Congress 

^Congressional  Globe,  December  10,  1866. 

"  Dunning,  Reconstruction,  Political  and  Economic,  p.  125. 

3  J.  G.  Blaine,  Twenty  Years  in  Congress,  II,  262. 


Suffrage  and  the  Civil  War  173 

was  determined  and  set  about  the  business  in  a  thorough- 
going manner. 

On  March  2,  1867,  there  was  passed  in  Congress  an 
act  "to  provide  for  the  more  efficient  government  of  the 
Rebel  States."' 

Certain  portions  of  this  act  declared  no  government 
to  exist  in  the  ten  states.  This  was  a  deliberate  refuta- 
tion of  the  facts,  but  Congress  had  recourse  to  the  fiction 
in  order  to  justify  its  procedure.     The  act  also  divided 

'  It  is  not  possible  to  explain  the  contents  and  purpose  of  this  act 
better  than  by  quoting  it  in  part:  " Section  5.  When  the  people  of  any- 
one of  said  rebel  states  shall  have  formed  a  constitution  of  government 
in  conformity  with  the  constitution  of  the  United  States  in  all  respects, 
framed  by  a  convention  of  delegates  elected  by  the  male  citizens  of  such 
state,  twenty-one  years  old  and  upwards,  of  whatever  color,  race,  or 
previous  condition,  who  have  been  resident  in  said  state  for  one  year 
previous  to  the  day  of  such  election,  except  such  as  may  be  disfranchised  i 
for  participation  in  the  rebellion,  or  for  felony  at  common  law;  and  when 
such  constitution  shall  provide  that  the  elective  franchise  shall  he  enjoyed 
by  all  such  persons  as  have  the  qualifications  herein  stated  for  electors  of 
delegates;  and  when  such  constitution  shall  be  ratified  by  a  majority 
of  the  persons  voting  on  the  question  of  ratification  who  are  qualified 
as  electors  for  delegates;  and  when  such  constitution  shall  have  been 
submitted  to  Congress  for  examination  and  approval,  and  Congress 
shall  have  approved  the  same;  and  when  such  state  by  a  vote  of  its 
legislature  elected  under  said  constitution  shall  have  adopted  the  amend- 
ment to  the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  proposed  by  the  Thirty- 
ninth  Congress  and  known  as  Article  Fourteen,  and  when  said  article 
shall  have  become  a  part  of  the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  said 
state  shall  be  declared  entitled  to  representation  in  Congress,  and 
senators  and  representatives  shall  be  admitted  therefrom,  on  their 
taking  the  oath  prescribed  by  law;  and  then  and  thereafter  the  pre- 
ceding sections  of  this  Act  shall  be  in  operation  in  said  state:  Provided, 
That  no  person  excluded  from  the  privilege  of  holding  office  by  said 
proposed  amendment  to  the  constitution  of  the  United  States  shall  be 
eligible  to  election  as  a  member  of  the  convention  to  frame  a  constitu- 
tion for  any  of  said  rebel  states,  nor  shall  any  such  person  vote  for  mem- 
bers of  such  convention." — McPherson,  op.  cit.,  p.  191. 


174  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

the  South  into  five  military  divisions.     The  practical 
effect  of  the  act  was,  of  course,  to  overthrow  the  govern- 
ments which  Johnson  had  set  up.     But  the  points  which 
pare  of  particular  interest  in  this  work  are  to  be  found  in 
rthe  section  quoted:   first,  negroes  must  be  admitted  to 
"^  the  suffrage  when  elections  for  delegates  to  the  constitu- 
^Itional  convention  were  held;    secondly,  the  new  con- 
"t4stitutions  must  provide  permanently  for  negro  suffrage; 
"'^iand  thirdly,  the  newly  organized  states  must  ratify  the 
proposed   Fourteenth   Amendment.     Never   before   or 
since  in  the  history  of  the  United  States  has  Congress 
..^attempted  to  lay  such  severe  conditions  upon  a  state 
'  entering  the  Union.     Congress  fully  realized  that  it  was 
/^impossible  to  force  a  full-fledged  state  into  providing 

(for  negro  suffrage,  and  therefore  it  chose  to  take  ad- 
vantage of  their  position  to  insure  negro  suffrage  before 
the  states  were  admitted,  for  Congress  was  determined 
upon  negro  suffrage— /(?r  the  South. 
r-     So  far  as  legal  rights  go  there  is  no  doubt  that  Congress 
^   '  had  the  power  to  insist  upon  negro  suffrage  in  the  election 
of  delegates  to  state  conventions,  and  if  it  can  reasonably 
be  presumed  that  Congress  would  have  maintained  a 
similar  policy  toward  a  really  new  territory  seeking 
admission  and  not  laboring  under  the  stigma  of  rebellion, 
this  provision  of  the  law  may  be  considered  a  turning- 
point  in  the  national  policy  as  regards  the  admission  of 
new  states  and  need  not  excite  opprobrious  comments. 
But  the  next  point  mentioned,  the  clause  requiring  the 
V    new  states  to  make  provision  in  their  new  constitutions 
for  negro  suffrage,  had  no  justification  in  either  theory 
or  law.     There  would  be  no  point  to  such  a  proposition 
,  unless  it  were  intended  to  be  permanent,  and  indeed 


Suffrage  and  the  Civil  War  175 

Virginia,  the  first  state  to  proceed  under  the  act,  was 
obliged  to  provide  in  her  constitution  that  it  should 
never  be  amended  so  as  to  exclude  the  negroes.     Mani- 
festly, if  the  constitution  of  a  state  contained  any  clause 
whatever  which  the  state  itself  was  not  competent  to 
alter  (in  conformity  to  the  federal  Constitution),  the 
rights  of  that  state  would  be  distinctly  inferior  to  the 
rights  of  other  states.     Congress  has  not  a  vestige  of 
power  to  dictate  what  shall  be  contained  in  the  organic    :  .^ 
law  of  a  state  once  the  state  is  a  full-fledged  member  of 
the   Union.     The   only  barrier   standing  between   the^ 
unlimited  power  of  a  state  and  the  making  of  its  organic  ^ 
law  is  the  federal  Constitution.     At  this  time  the  Con^ 
stitution  said  nothing  about  the  suffrage  a  state  must  " 
maintain,  and  hence  a  full-fledged  state  would  be  entirely 
free  in  the  matter. 

Again,  it  is  interesting  to  consider  the  philosophy 
which  implied  that  a  creating  power  is  competent  in 
fact,  not  in  law,  to  put  a  permanent  limitation  upon  its 
own  power.  Any  sanction  higher  than  the  creating 
power,  and  therefore  any  limitation  of  power,  must 
emanate  from  another  source.  Congress  recognized 
that  it  did  not  have  this  power  to  limit  state  action  when 
it  asked  the  states  to  limit  their  own  power.  Philo- 
sophically speaking,  it  was  demanding  that  the  states 
do  that  which  in  the  nature  of  things  cannot  be  done.  A 
very  great  deal  has  been  written  about  the  legal  aspects 
of  this  situation,  and  cases  have  been  tried  in  court  about 
it.  But  it  does  seem  as  if  the  simple  philosophical 
proposition  ought  to  settle  the  question.  An  unamend-  , 
able  constitution  is  an  impossible  thing,  unless  it  be  , 
maintained   by   some   power   other   than   that   which 


176  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

created  it.  If  by  the  very  terms  of  the  proposition 
there  be  no  other  power  in  the  field,  the  creating  power 
cannot  possibly  recognize  any  limitations  even  if  it 
would ;  and  all  the  laws  in  the  world  could  not  alter  the 
relationship.  And  yet  writers  of  organic  law  have  fre- 
quently presumed  to  limit  the  very  power  of  which  they 
are  the  mouthpiece,  without  for  a  moment  recognizing 
any  other  sanction.     And  inevitably  they  fail. 

[        The  remaining  problem  then  for  the  legalists  to 

:•  struggle  with  is  this :  No  matter  how  foolish  or  impotent 
the  clause  may  be,  has  Congress  the  right  to  demand 
that  it  be  included  in  the  constitutions  of  incoming 

-states?  Congress  has  the  power  to  say  when  a  state 
shall  be  admitted  to  the  Union.  Presumably  then  there 
is  no  limitation  on  the  conditions  that  may  be  prescribed, 
and  thus  indirectly  Congress  surely  was  competent  to 
require  the  southern  states  to  incorporate  this  suffrage 

-clause  in  their  constitutions.  But  nothing  short  of  an 
amendment  to  the  federal  Constitution  could  oblige  the 
states  to  retain  the  suffrage  clause  once  they  were  ad- 
mitted to  full  statehood. 

^^.  As  to  the  third  point  mentioned,  with  regard  to  the 
Fourteenth  Amendment,  it  is  difficult  to  see  the  object 
of  the  clause.  The  ratification  of  the  amendment  by 
the  southern  commonwealths  before  they  became  full- 

^  fledged  states  once  more  could  have  no  weight  whatever. 
If  the  legislature  of  Alabama,  or  the  people  themselves 
in  constituent  assembly,  could  not  speak  as  a  state  in 
the  Union,  they  might  as  well  not  speak  at  all  so  far  as 
ratifying  an  amendment  to  the  federal  Constitution  is 
concerned.  And  if  they  became  fully  competent  to 
speak  as  a  state,  there  could  be  no  power  whatever  com- 
petent to  dictate  how  they  should  speak. 


Suffrage  and  the  Civil  War  177 

As  might  have  been  expected,  President  Johnson 
vetoed  the  act  of  March  2,  saying,  what  was  obviously- 
true,  that  adequate  governments  were  already  operating 
in  the  southern  states/  But  he  was  forced  to  accept 
the  humiliating  position  of  seeing  all  his  work  go  for 
naught  in  spite  of  his  veto. 

But  when  the  bill  came  to  be  actually  in  force,  the 
question  naturally  arose:  By  what  authority  did  Con- 
gress direct  the  organization  of  new  governments  in  the 
South?  It  was  the  same  question  which  had  been 
flung  at  Johnson  in  1865,  and  it  has  always  remained 
unanswered.  Some  congressmen  invoked  as  a  flinisy 
justification  that  clause  of  the  federal  Constitution 
requiring  Congress  to  guarantee  a  republican  form  of 
government  in  the  states.  But  there  was  no  historical 
foundation  for  the  argument  that  negroes,  or  anybody 
else,  must  be  included  in  the  suffrage  in  order  to  estab- 
lish a  republican  form  of  government.  At  the  time  the 
federal  Constitution  was  put  in  force,  and  many  years 
thereafter,  not  only  negroes,  but  many  others,  were 
excluded  in  most  of  the  states. 

From  a  perusal  of  the  records  of  the  convention  of 
1787  it  would  seem  that  the  framers  of  the  Constitution 
did  not  know  themselves  exactly  what  they  meant  by 
a  republican  form  of  government.^  Mr.  Madison 
seemed  to  believe  that  all  the  federal  government  should 
do  was  to  help  support  the  legitimate  constitution  of  a 
state  if  support  became  necessary.  What  they  really 
sought  to  guard  against  in  all  probability  was  the  possible 
inception  of  monarchical  institutions  in  some  state. 
Randolph's  vague  suggestion  that  "no  state  be  at  liberty 

'  McPherson,  op,  cU.,  p.  167. 

*  Elliott,  Debates  on  the  Federal  Constitutiotii  V,  333. 


178  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

to  form  any  other  than  a  republican  government"  was 
exceedingly  indefinite.  They  knew  what  they  did  not 
want  to  happen,  but  they  did  not  know  just  how  to 
guard  against  it.  Probably  there  was  no  need  of  a 
safeguard  in  any  case.  But  certain  it  is,  however,  that 
they  never  thought  of  interpreting  republicanism  in  any 
such  narrow  terms  as  suffrage  provisions.  Each  state 
put  its  own  limitations  on  suffrage,  and  the  convention 
had  no  thought  of  dictating  other  limitations. 

The  act  of  March  2  required  supporting  legislation. 
Just  who  could  vote  for  delegates  to  the  constitutional 
convention  ?  To  clear  up  this  difficulty  Congress  passed 
an  act  on  March  23, 1867,  which  provided  for  registration 
in  the  South.  Only  those  who  were  registered  under 
this  act  could  vote  for  delegates. 

In  very  simple  phrases  this  act  undertook  to  enfran- 
chise all  the  negroes  simply  by  the  easy  expedient  of  not 
excluding  them.  Certain  southerners  were  excluded 
from  registration,  but  neither  this  act  nor  the  act  of 
March  2  required  that  the  southern  states  should  per- 
petuate this  exclusion  clause  in  their  new  constitutions. 
Some  of  them  did  and  some  were  more  generous,  as  will 
be  seen  later. 

Certain  sections  of  the  act  of  March  23  provided  that 
in  order  to  be  valid  one-half  of  the  registered  voters 
must  vote  at  an  election.  In  order  to  obstruct  progress, 
southern  extremists  who  were  not  excluded  decided  to 
register  and  then  stay  away  from  the  polls.  But  they 
might  have  anticipated  what  later  did  happen :  Congress 
passed  an  act  on  December  18  following,  whereby  a 
majority  of  those  voting  would  carry  an  election.  The 
President  let  the  bill  lie  on  his  table  and  it  only  became 
law  by  lapse  of  time. 


Suffrage  and  the  Civil  War  179 

Vast  numbers  of  southern  whites  were  excluded  from 
the  suffrage — ^many  of  the  best  were  excluded  by  the 
acts  of  Congress,  many  others  voluntarily  stayed  away 
from  the  registration  offices.  And  more  vast  were  the 
numbers  of  the  negroes  included  in  the  registration, 
although  some  apathy  was  manifest  in  different  portions 
of  the  South,  and  varidus  expedients  were  adopted  to 
stimulate  their  registration.  A  more  or  less  effective 
step  in  this  direction  was  that  taken  by  General  Pope. 
He  had  charge  of  the  third  district,  and  in  making  up 
the  registration  boards  he  always  included  a  negro. 

Indeed  it  was  sometimes  difficult  to  get  white  men 
to  sit  on  these  boards  on  account  of  the  inflamed  public 
opinion.  As  a  result  the  registration  was  rather  poorly 
done.  Naturally  the  whole  situation  was  calculated 
to  excite  the  indignation  of  the  southerner.  The  fact 
of  military  rule  was  humiliating  and  yet  it  might  have 
been  more  or  less  acceptable — for  there  was  nothing 
necessarily  offensive  in  rule  by  honest  military  com- 
manders— but  general  negro  suffrage  accompanied  with 
wholesale  disfranchisement  of  southerners  made  the 
situation  quite  intolerable. 

At  this  point  it  is  well  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that 
northern  Republicans  were  not  without  ulterior  motives 
in  seeking  to  enfranchise  the  negro.  The  principle  of 
negro  suffrage  was  popular,  of  course,  but  the  Republican 
politicians  were  very  likely  to  have  something  more  in 
mind  than  justice  to  the  black  man  when  they  fought  to 
gain  the  suffrage  for  him.  They  wanted  to  make  sure 
of  Republican  majorities  and  permanently  cripple  the 
Democratic  party.  As  early  as  December,  1866, 
Mr.  Blaine  complained  in  Congress  about  the  possi- 
bility of  the  southern  states  returning  with  the  same 


i8o  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

measure  of  representation  enjoyed  by  them  previous  to 
the  war — ^largely  based  on  a  non-voting  population.^ 
He  said,  "If  the  southern  states  are  to  be  deprived  of 
their  undue  share  of  representatives,  based  on  their 
non- voting  population,  they  should  be  deprived  of  them 
at  once,  and  not  be  admitted,  even  temporarily,  with 
the  old  apportionment/'  He  seemed  to  be  more  intent 
on  reducing  their  representation  than  on  securing 
suffrage  for  the  negro.  But  later  on  the  latter  view  to 
the  same  end  became  more  popular.  It  was  soon  evi- 
dent that  a  large  negro  electorate  would  give  the  Repub- 
lican party  enormous  prestige,  and  many  congressmen 
were  exultant  over  the  prospect.* 

In  April,  1867,  Charles  Sumner,  in  writing  to  the 
editor  of  the  Independent,  urged  the  necessity  of  per- 
mitting the  negroes  to  vote  throughout  the  North  as 
well  as  in  the  South.^  Negroes  everywhere  would  swell 
the  Republican  ranks.  He  had  in  mind  the  coming 
Presidential  election  and  knew  that  he  could  depend 
upon  the  negroes  in  the  North.  But  aside  from  this 
ulterior  motive  his  point  was  surely  well  taken.  If  there 
was  any  sound  reason  for  extending  suffrage  in  the 
South,  surely  the  northern  negroes  ought  to  vote.  But 
Congress  could  not  help  them. 

And  when,  later  in  the  year,  time  pressed  the  Repub- 
licans, they  altered  the  bill  providing  that  one-half  of 
the  registered  voters  were  necessary  to  validate  an 
election  and  made  it  a  majority  of  those  voting.     This 

^  Congressional  Globe,  Second  Session,  Thirty-ninth  Congress,  p.  53. 
'  Ihid.,  First  Session,  Fortieth  Congress,  p.  144. 
3  Pol,  Sci.  Quar.,  IX,  682. 


Suffrage  and  the  Civil  War  i8i 

trouble  had  been  anticipated  long  before  on  the  floor 
of  Congress,  where  it  was  pointed  out  that  while  vigorous 
efforts  would  be  made  to  get  all  negro  men  registered  not 
nearly  so  many  would  appear  at  elections.^  It  would 
be  much  easier  to  dissuade  simple  negroes  from  voting 
than  to  dissuade  them  from  being  passively  registered. 
Registration  required  little  energy  or  thought. 

Before  leaving  Congress  to  devote  attention  to  the 
southern  state  conventions,  it  may  be  mentioned  that  it 
showed  good  faith  in  seeking  negro  suffrage  by  enfran- 
chising the  negroes  in  the  District  of  Columbia  and  in 
the  territories.     The  bill  enfranchising  the  negro  in  the 
District  of  Columbia  was  vetoed  by  the  President  on 
January  7,   1867,  and  it  is  very  significant  that  the 
reason  he  gave  for  his  veto  was  that  a  referendum  on  the    / 
subject  of  negro  suffrage  in  Washington  had  resulted  in    v' 
a  vote  of  six  thousand  five  hundred  and  fifty-six  against 
thirty-five    in    favor .^    However,    the    following    day^ 
adhering   to   their  policy   of   guaranteeing   republican   \ 
government,  Congress  carried  the  bill  over  the  Presi-. 
dent's  veto. 

The  act  enfranchising  negroes  in  the  territories  was 
passed  on  January  10,  1867,  and  was  expressed  in  these 
brief  terms:  "  ....  there  shall  be  no  denial  of  the 
elective  franchise  in  any  of  the  territories  of  the  United 
States,  now  or  hereafter  to  be  organized,  to  any  citizen 
thereof,  on  account  of  race,  color,  or  previous  condition 
of  servitude "^ 

*  Ibid.y  First  Session,  Fortieth  Congress,  p.  144. 

*  Ibid.,  First  Session,  Thirty-ninth  Congress,  Part  I,  p.  133. 
3  McPherson,  op.  cii.,  p.  184. 


i82  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

In  the  fall  of  1867  the  southern  states  were  begin- 
ning to  hold  their  constitutional  conventions  under  the 
reconstruction  acts.  The  bitter  medicine  which  these 
conventions  had  to  swallow  was  the  proposed  Fourteenth 
Amendment  and  the  granting  of  negro  suffrage.  In  a 
sense  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  was  a  clumsy  means 
of  securing  the  negro  suffrage.  In  spite  of  the  action 
each  state  was  required  to  take  in  granting  negro 
suffrage  in  its  own  constitution,  Congress  was  not  satis- 
fied that  it  would  last.  It  could  not  secure  just  what  it 
wanted,  directly  on  its  own  authority,  and  so  by  means 
of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  sought  to  penalize  any 
state  which  failed  to  keep  faith  in  the  matter  of  the 
suffrage  clause.     Some  men,  of  whom  President  Johnson 

)  was  one,  accepted  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  at  its 
face  value,  bona  fide,  and  no  doubt  expected  some  of 

)  the  states  later  on  to  accept  the  alternative  and  consent 

«  to  a  decrease  of  representation  as  the  price  for  negro 
disfranchisement.  But  no  southern  state  ever  con- 
sidered this  alternative  seriously,  and  thus  it  was  that 
the  Fourteenth  Amendment  operated  merely  as  a  club 
to  coerce  the  South  into  maintaining  negro  suffrage. 
It  was  this  amendment  which  the  conventions  in  the 
fall  and  winter  of  1867-68  were  obliged  to  accept. 
Another  consideration  before  the  conventions  was 

I  the  civil  status  of  the  negro.     The  suffrage  he  must  have. 

'"But  Congress  had  anticipated  disabilities  being  placed 

/     upon  the  negro,  and  on  April  9,  1866,  had  passed  a 

Civil  Rights  Act.'    The  most  essential  provision  was 

J    that  "all  persons  born  in  the  United  States  and  not 

C.  subject  to  any  foreign  power,  excluding  Indians  not 
^  U.S.  Comp.  Stat.,  1901,  p.  1268. 


Suffrage  and  the  Civil  War  183 

taxed,  are  declared  to  be  citizens  of  the  United  States/^-^ 
President  Johnson  had  vetoed  the  bill  largely  becausej^ 
he  considered  it  unnecessary.  He  thought  that  there 
was  no  reason  to  doubt  the  fact  which  the  bill  expressed, 
and  that  no  new  legal  relationships  were  created  by  it. 
Both  this  act  and  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  expressed 
the  same  idea  as  regards  citizenship,  and  that  was  simply 
the  common-law  idea.  If  a  person  is  born  in  the  United 
States  and  subject  to  its  jurisdiction,  he  is  a  citizen  of 
the  United  States,  and  this  has  always  been  true  since 
the  adoption  of  the  Constitution.^ 

The   Civil   Rights  Bill  and   later   the   Fourteenth 
Amendment  simply  gave  emphatic  expression  to  this 
old  common-law  rule.     The  irritating  thing  about  it/ 
was  that  it  meant  in  plain  language  that  negroes  were 
citizens  without  taking  oaths,  passing  literacy  tests,  etc. 
They  actually  were  citizens  simply  by  virtue  of  being 
bom.     A  purely  national  conception  of  citizenship  was  \   ^ 
attained,  which  broke  away  from  any  attempts  to  tie  up  ' ' 
the  negro's  status  with  the  rights  he  might  be  permitted 
to  enjoy  in  the  state  of  his  residence.    And  even  the' 
power  of  the  states  was  compromised,  for  the  negro  [4 
automatically  became  a  citizen  of  the  state  of  his  resi- 
dence and  entitled  to  the  privileges  attaching  thereto. 

Thus,  with  the  Reconstruction  acts,  bolstered  upjs^ 
with  the  Civil  Rights  Act  and  the  Fourteenth  Amend- 1  ~J 
ment  before  them,  the  conventions  went  to  work. 

Two  things  are  especially  to  be  considered  regarding  I 
the  character  of  these   conventions:  the  first  is  that    v 
large  numbers  of  negroes  were  present  in  the  assemblies, 
and  the  second  that  they  were  very  largely  under  the    ^ 

» Van  Dyne,  Citizenship  of  the  United  States,  pp.  7-12. 


a 


184  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

4  1  dominance  of  the  district  military  commanders.  These 
facts  account  for  the  apparent  docility  of  the  conven- 
tions which  the  temper  of  the  South  would  hardly  lead 
one  to  expect. 
r  ^  Alabama  was  the  first  of  the  ten  states  to  organ- 
dy ize  a  convention.  It  met  in  Montgomery  in  Novem- 
^^^ber,  1867.  The  committee  appointed  to  draft  a  suffrage 
clause  presented  a  report  which  in  most  of  its  essentials 
was  adopted.  This  report  aimed  to  enfranchise  all 
male  citizens  and  foreigners  who  had  declared  intentions 
to  become  citizens.  They  proposed  to  disfranchise  all 
who  had  practiced  barbarities  on  captives  in  the  Civil 
War,  those  who  refused  to  vote  either  one  way  or  the 
other  on  the  constitution  when  submitted,  and  those 
who  refused  to  subscribe  to  an  oath  repudiating  secession 
doctrine  and  expressing  approval  of  admitting  negroes 
to  full  political  rights. 

The  minority  report  of  the  convention  was  very 
much  more  conciliatory  in  its  tone.  It  left  out  the  dis- 
franchising clause  and  merely  required  a  general  oath 
of  allegiance  to  the  United  States  government.  As 
this  was  one  of  the  first  conventions  called  under  the 
Reconstruction  acts,  the  proposals  entertained  there  are 
well  worth  considering.  There  was  an  evident  desire 
to  make  it  difficult  for  the  Confederates  to  exercise  the 
franchise.  Many  delegates  wished  permanently  to  dis- 
franchise all  who  had  been  excluded  by  the  Recon- 
struction Act  of  March  23.  This  would  have  meant 
wholesale  disfranchisement,  and  there  was  no  cause  to 
believe  that  reasonable  statesmen  in  the  North  expected 
it.  They  merely  wanted  these  conventions  to  work 
unhampered  by  Confederate  sympathies. 


Suffrage  and  the  Civil  War  185 

A  good  example  of  attempted  persecution  was  the 
following  proposal : 

No  person  shall  be  deemed  a  qualified  elector,  or  permitted 
to  vote  in  this  state,  at  any  election  under  the  constitution  unless 
he  will  take  and  subscribe  an  oath  that  on  the  Fourth  Day  of 
March,  1864,  he  preferred  the  government  of  the  United  States 
to  the  government  of  the  so-called  Confederacy,  and  would  have 
abandoned  its  cause  had  he  had  the  opportunity  to  have  done  so.^ 

Another  proposal  was  to  exclude  every  person  who 
had  participated  in  the  Rebellion,  unless  he  later  removed 
the  stigma  by  assisting  in  reconstruction.  A  great 
many  special  disabilities  were  aimed  at  those  who  were 
members  of  the  legislature  of  186 1,  those  who  were  mem- 
bers of  the  Confederate  Congress,  those  who  voted  for 
conscription,  etc.  However,  all  these  attempts  can  be 
looked  upon  as  merely  the  expression  of  a  bitter  feeling 
still  remaining  after  the  war,  and  probably  are  not  of 
much  significance  in  foretelling  the  policy  of  suffrage 
later  to  prevail.  ^ 

BuJ^jt_is_int^resting  to  note  how  quickly  measures  V. 
looking  toward  the  disfranchisement  of  the  negro  came  \ 
j^.     An  amendment  was  suggested,  although  it  received^ 
but  little  support,  that  after  1870  a  literacy  test  should 
be  put  in  operation  requiring  all  voters  to  be  able  to 
read  and  write.      Surely  this  was  an  omen  o'f  future 
developments. 

Xs  it  finally  stood,  this  constitution  granted  universal  I 
male  suffrage  to  citizens  and  to  foreigners  who  declared^^ 
intention.     It  prescribed  an  oath  of  allegiance  involv-  I^L 
ing  a  repudiation  of  southern  doctrine.     It  specifically^^ 
excluded  those  who  had  violated  the  rules  of  civilized ' 

^  Ala.  Conv.,  1867,  Journal,  p.  47. 


1 86  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

I  warfare,  those  excluded  by  the  Fourteenth  Amendment, 

sA  and,  most  important,  those  who  were  not  permitted  to 

vote  for  delegates  to  the  conventions,  unless  they  had 

i""  j  openly  assisted  in  reconstruction. 

^     In  December,   1867,  Louisiana  held  a  convention. 

\  This  convention  drew  a  constitution  which  included  in 

--  khe  suffrage   all  male   citizens  but  failed   to  include 

foreigners  who  declared  intention.     Article  99  excluded 

those  who  held  office  for  one  year  in  the  Confederacy, 

those  who  registered  as  enemies  of  the  United  States, 

those  who  led  guerilla  bands,  those  who  wrote  or  spoke 

against   the   United   States,    advocating   treason,    and 

any  and  all  who  signed  an  ordinance  of  secession.    These 

disabilities  could  be  removed  by  individuals  who  would 

take  oaths  repudiating  former  Confederate  sympathies, 

^,  or  who  would  actively  assist  in  reconstruction.     And  as 

).  for  the  exclusion  clause  applying  to  officers  in  the  Con- 

"".  federacy,  the  legislature  was  to  be  competent  to  remove 

~^~.  this  disability  by  a  two-thirds  vote  at  any  time. 

No  more  conventions  were  held  until  the  new  year 
arrived.  In  January  a  convention  assembled  at  Charles- 
ton, in  South  Carolina.  A  campaign  was  launched  at 
once  to  prevent  the  putting  of  any  provision  in  the 
suffrage  clause  that  would  necessarily  involve  perma- 
nent and  arbitrary  exclusion  on  the  face  of  it.  It  was 
urged  that  all  disabilities  which  involved  discrimina- 
tions which  men  could  never  overcome  of  their  own 
action  should  be  abandoned.  Such  a  policy  would 
prevent  the  disfranchising  of  Confederates  and  those 
mentioned  in  the  Reconstruction  acts.  Such  senti- 
ments as  these  quickly  brought  the  convention  to  the 
consideration  of  literacy  or  property  tests.     The  com- 


Suffrage  and  the  Civil  War  187 

mittee  reported  in  favor  of  applying  a  reading  and  writ- 
ing test  in  1875,  and  debate  in  convention  on  the  matter 
of  suffrage  was  largely  confined  to  this  proposition. 

Indignant  opposition  appeared  at  once.  It  was 
pointed  out  that  although  the  committee  would  post- 
pone the  operation  of  the  test  for  seven  years,  it  was 
very  unjust  to  the  negro.  It  was  said  that  it  would 
take  more  years  than  seven  to  establish  a  school  system 
throughout  the  South  that  would  embrace  the  negro 
population.  Charleston  was  the  only  city  in  the  state 
having  a  comprehensive  system  at  that  time.^ 

In  view  of  the  committee^s  report  and  the  spirited 
support  it  received,  the  final  vote  on  the  matter  is  sur- 
prising. The  literacy  test  was  snowed  under  one  hun-/ 
dred  and  seven  to  two,  with  ten  not  voting.  ^ 

There  was  some  debate  on  whether  foreigners  should 
be  allowed  to  vote  after  declaring  intention;  the  need 
of  encouraging  immigration  was  pointed  out,  but  the 
convention  did  not  support  the  move. 

As  the  constitution  finally  stood,  it  was  one  of  the 
simplest  of  all.     It  enfranchised  all  male  citizens  ''with-  . 
out  distinction  of  race,  color,  or  former  condition.''    No  a 
one  was  specifically  excluded,  although  an  unnecessary 
phrase  declared  that  none  should  vote  who  were  excluded 
by  the  United  States  Constitution. 

Arkansas  held  a  convention  the  same  month.  It 
was  soon  evident  that  a  less  generous  policy  was  to  be 
followed    here.     Severe    measures    excluding    southern 

^  S.C.  Conv.,  1868,  Proceedings,  p.  49.  One  delegate  said  with 
much  point,  "I  think  it  would  come  with  bad  grace  from  any  indi- 
vidual in  this  state,  who  has  helped  to  deprive  men  for  two  centuries 
of  the  means  of  education,  to  demand  that  in  seven  years  all  unable 
to  read  should  not  be  allowed  to  vote." 


i88  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

S3anpathizers  were  introduced.  Yet  a  considerable 
number  of  men  were  opposed  to  perpetuating  the  dis- 
criminatory franchise  rules  of  the  Reconstruction  acts 
and  were  in  the  difficult  position  of  trying  to  make  sure 
that  their  constitution  would  be  accepted  if  a  broader 
franchise  were  granted. 

A  resolution  was  introduced  aiming  to  exclude  all 
obstructionists  who  opposed  the  reconstruction  policy, 
and  the  novel  expedient  was  suggested  of  automatically 
disfranchising  in  the  future  every  person  who  gave  a 
negative  vote  on  the  proposed  new  constitution.  How 
these  persons  were  to  be  detected  was  not  mentioned. 

As  finally  adopted,  the  constitution  contained  a  few 
severe  restrictions,  but  they  were  tempered  with  a  clause 
which  made  it  possible  for  most  men  to  escape  from  them. 
An  oath  of  allegiance  involving  repudiation  of  Con- 
federate doctrines  was  required.  Those  disqualified  in 
the  state  whence  they  came  were  excluded,  and  also 
those  who  violated  the  rules  of  civilized  warfare.  Most 
important  was  the  clause  excluding  all  who  were  not  per- 
mitted to  vote  for  delegates  to  the  convention,  but  these 
might  remove  such  disability  if  they  openly  assisted  in 
reconstruction. 

In  the  same  month,  January,  North  Carolina  held  a 
convention   and   drafted  a  constitution  which  specifi- 
cally excluded  nobody  except  *'all  who  deny  the  being 
of  Almighty  God."    A  simple  oath  of  allegiance  was 
also  required. 
|~      Florida,  also  in  January,  prepared  a  new  constitu- 
J  1  tion,  and  she  too  failed  to  lay  any  disabihties  upon  the 
^./  Confederates.    All  that  was  required  was  a  simple  oath 
'  of  allegiance. 


Suffrage  and  the  Civil  War  189 

In  Georgia  a  convention  met  in  March.  The  suffrage 
committee  reported  in  favor  of  disqualifying  the  men 
who  were  not  permitted  to  vote  for  delegates  to  the  con- 
vention only  so  long  as  the  federal  rules  were  in  force. 
An  amendment  was  proposed  to  require  ability  to  read 
after  1873,  t>ut  was  turned  down,  sixty-eight  to  forty.' 
A  forecast  of  measures  adopted  a  score  of  years  later  is 
seen  in  the  proposal  to  require  of  voters  ''that  they 
can  read  and  write,  and  understand  the  moral  obligation 
of  an  oath,  and  shall  own  and  possess,  in  his,  or  their, 
own  right,  $250.00  worth  of  real  estate,  and  shall  have 
paid  all  legal  taxes  for  the  year  preceding  election."^ 
But  as  finally  adopted  the  constitution  contained  no 
disabilities. 

Thus  it  happened  that  in  the  spring  of  1868  seven  of  \/ 
the  ten  states  were  ready  with  new  constitutions.     They  \ 
were  all  acceptable  to  Congress  and  were  all  admitted  1 
to  the  Union  in  June,  Arkansas  on  the  twenty-second,  J  ^■ 
the  others  on  the  twenty-fifth. 

Those   still   outside   were   Mississippi,   Texas,   and 
Virginia.     Virginia  had  held  a  constitutional  convention 
as  early  as  July,  1867,  and  all  this  time  the  people  had 
been  bickering  over  the  franchise  provision.     A  most    ; 
offensive  clause  had  been  inserted  which  disfranchised 


( 


certain-named  officers  who  had  held  office  in  the  southern 
states  or  had  represented  such  a  state  in  federal  office. 
It  was  even  more  stringent  than  the  Reconstruction  acts 
themselves  and  excluded  a  long  Hst  of  petty  officials:  U 
mayors   of   towns,   recorders,    aldermen,    coroners,   in-  I 
spectors  of  flour  and  tobacco,  constables,  and  county  ! 

^  Ga.  Conv.,  1868,  Journal,  p.  279. 
"  Ihid.,  p.  280. 


iQo  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

surveyors.  The  people  of  the  state  refused  to  counte- 
nance such  provisions  and  would  not  ratify  the  constitu- 
tion so  that  the  state  could  go  to  Congress  with  it. 
However,  in  April,  1869,  President  Grant  proposed  that 
the  disfranchising  clause  be  the  subject  of  a  separate 
vote,  and  this  was  done.  Then  the  constitution  was 
passed  without  difficulty,  and  Virginia  was  admitted  to 
the  Union  on  January  26,  1870. 

Similar  difficulties  arose  in  Mississippi  and  Texas, 
and  finally  the  radicals  in  those  states  had  to  reconcile 
themselves  to  giving  up  disfranchising  clauses  in  their 
own  constitution  and  be  satisfied  with  the  Fifteenth 
Amendment.  Mississippi  was  not  admitted  until  Febru- 
ary 22,  1870,  and  Texas  on  March  30.  Then  once  more 
the  Union  was  complete. 

On  the  same  day  that  the  last  seceding  state,  Texas, 
^a-eturned  to  the  Union,  the  Eifteeiith_Amendment  was 
declared  to  be  in  force,  March  30,  1870.  This  article  is 
very  simple  in  its  terms,  merely  forbidding  any  state 
to  deny  the  franchise  on  account  of  race,  color,  or  pre- 
vious condition.  Congress  had  left  no  stone  unturned 
to  secure  suffrage  for  the  negro.  Reconstruction  was 
complete,  the  war  amendments  were  all  properly  ratified 
and  in  force,  and  a  new  era  in  the  history  of  suffrage  was 
at  hand. 


CHAPTER  VIII 
.      DISFRANCHISING  THE  NEGRO 

The  immediate  results  of  negro  suffrage  were  some- 
what startling.  Representative  assemblies  are  not 
likely  to  be  on  a  much  higher  plane  of  intelligence  than 
the  constituencies  electing  them.  Men  who  staunchly 
defend  an  abstract  theory  through  thick  and  thin  are 
seldom  much  perturbed  at  unfortunate  results  following 
the  practical  application  of  their  theory.  But  in  the 
case  of  negro  suffrage,  events  immediately  following 
general  enfranchisement  were  calculated  to  shatter  the 
faith  of  the  most  determined  advocate.  Rarely  has  it 
been  desirable  in  this  work  to  dilate  upon  the  results  of  a 
new  extension  of  suffrage.  Practically  all  such  exten- 
sions come  to  stay,  and  serious  efforts  at  reaction  scarcely 
gain  the  least  attention.  But  here  the  case  was  different.' 
The  misery  of  the  South  in  the  decade  following  the  war 
was  largely  traceable  to  negro  suffrage  and,  what  is  more 
significant,  laid  the  foundation  for  successful  attacks 
against  the  whole  policy  of  negro  suffrage.  The  spectacle 
of  the  South  during  those  years  caused  sober  men  to 
wonder  if  democracy  was  a  failure  and  if  true  democracy 
did  really  involve  universal  suffrage.  And  if  it  did,  was 
not  the  price  paid  altogether  too  great  when  measured 
in  terms  of  political  vice,  corruption,  villainy,  and  out- 
rage? As  things  turned  out  it  seemed  that  the  term 
^'democracy"  was  no  less  a  mocking  word  when  applied 
to   southern  commonwealths  dominated  by  thieving,    \^ 

191 


} 


i 


192  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

irresponsible,  hopelessly  ignorant  blacks  than  it  was  in 
earlier  times  when  those  same  blacks  were  slaves. 

An  account  of  this  riot  of  corruption  cannot  be  given 
here.    The   negroes,    aided   by   vicious    carpetbaggers 
from  the  North,  got  possession  of  the  state  legislatures, 
and  the  powers  of  the  government  were  prostituted  to 
most  unholy  purposes.     Most  of  the  wrongdoing  con- 
sisted in  various  methods  of  pilfering  the  state  treasury 
and  exploiting  available  resources.     But  every  evil  deed 
.simply  made  more  certain  the  coming  of  that  reaction 
/destined  to  drive  the  negro  from  the  polls.    His  enfran- 
i  chisement  had  been  secured  by  artificial  means  and  not 
X  j  by  the  normal  process  of  building  up  a  popular  support. 
I  And  how  very  significant  it  is  that  such  artificial  methods 
V  were  unable  to  establish  a  condition  that  would  endure! 
Happenings    in    Washington,    D.C.,    in    the    early 
seventies  did  not  help  the  cause  of  negro  suffrage.' 
There  had  been  gross  mismanagement  in  the  business  of 
beautifying  Washington  along  the  line  of  a  plan  fostered 
\  by  an  overambitious  board  of  public  works.     Invasion 
*  of  property  rights  and  great  extravagance  were  much 
complained  of.     Such  high-handed  practice  could  only 
be  supported  by  an  irresponsible  electorate,  such  as  the 
negroes,  who  solidly  backed  up  anything  Republican 
officers  chose  to  do.    The  leading  member  of  the  board 
of  public  works,  A.  R.  Sheppard,  was  a  friend  of  President 
Grant's,   and   the  negro   asked   no  more   about  him. 
Congress  took  advantage  of  the  occasion  to  change  the 
form  of  government  in  Washington  in  1874,  and  by  this 
step  everyone  living  there  was  disfranchised.     It  is  not 
fair  to  attribute  this  change  entirely  to  the  bad  results 
^  Appleton,  Annual  Cyclopedia  (1874),  p.  268. 


Disfranchising  the  Negro  193 

of  negro  suffrage,  and  yet  it  is  significant  that  less  than 
five  years  after  Congress  in  a  pompous,  self-righteous 
manner  had  sought  to  make  Washington  democratic  by 
establishing  universal  suffrage  it  found  it  desirable  to 
withdraw  all  suffrage  rights.  The  incident  was  looked 
upon  as  a  severe  setback  to  negro  suffrage/ 

It  is  not  proper  to  lay  all  the  unfortunate  results  of 
negro  suffrage  at  the  door  of  the  negro.  His  gullibility 
and  ignorance  were  frequently  exploited  by  designing 
whites  with  ulterior  motives.  It  has  been  pointed  out 
before  that  many  politicians  were  no  doubt  seeking  the 
good  of  their  party  and  their  own  political  future  rather 
than  abstract  justice  for  the  negro .^  Respectable  states- 
men, of  course,  did  not  countenance  the  gross  corruption 
in  the  southern  legislature,  but  they  were  slow  to  dis- 
approve the  actions  of  faithful  henchmen  such  as  the 
negroes  proved  to  be. 

But  while  negro  suffrage  was  raising  havoc  in  the 
South  the  courts  were  examining  the  war  amendments 
in  order  to  find  a  proper  interpretation  of  the  suffrage 
provisions  contained  in  them,  and  it  were  well  to  consider 
some  leading  cases. 

The  Fourteenth  Amendment  in  express  terms  forbade 
any  state  to  abridge  the  privileges  of  citizens  of  the 
United  States.  Claiming  that  a  right  to  vote  at  federal 
elections  was  a  privilege  attaching  to  United  States 
citizenship,  a  woman  in  New  York  cast  a  vote  for 
congressman.    The  state  of  New  York  did  not  provide 

^  Proc.  Am.  Pol.  Sci.  Assoc,  II,  158. 

'  A.  B.  Hart  in  Proc.  Am.  Pol.  Sci.  Assoc,  V,  2.  Page  153  fixes  on 
Thaddeus  Stevens  as  a  man  with  ulterior  motives,  caring  more  for  party 
success  than  for  the  rights  of  the  negro. 


194  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

for  woman  suffrage,  and  hence  she  had  violated  the 
New  York  state  law.    The  case  was  carried  to  the  federal 
courts  in  1873  on  the  ground  that  the  state  election  laws 
were  invalid  because  they  violated  the  clause  of  the 
Fourteenth  Amendment  forbidding  the  abridgment  of 
privileges  of  United  States  citizens.    But  her  case  fell 
to  the  ground  when  the  Supreme  Court  held  that  the 
right  to  vote  was  not  a  privilege  necessarily  accompany- 
ving  United  States  citizenship.^    The  right  of  suffrage 
^jf   never  was   guaranteed  by  the   Constitution   and   the 
t    Fourteenth  Amendment  does  not  so  guarantee  it.    The 
i   Fifteenth  Amendment  deals  more  directly  with  suffrage 
I    by  protecting  a  citizen  against  discrimination  at  the 
I      polls  on  account  of  race  or  color;   and  it  is  pointed  out 
\     by  the  court  that  if  the  Fifteenth  Amendment  had 
I    mentioned  sex  as  well  as  race  and  color  the  state  laws 
N^  discriminating  against  the  female  sex  would  be  invalid. 
The  same  issue  was  brought  up  in  a  Missouri  case  in 
the  following  year,  1874,  and  the  court  dealt  with  it  in 
such  a  manner  as  to  leave  no  loophole  for  trying  to  get  a 
different  interpretation.^    A  woman  sought  to  register 
in  Missouri,  where  the  law  provided  only  for  male 
suffrage.     She  maintained  that  the  Fourteenth  Amend- 
ment forbade  any  state  to  abridge  the  privileges  of  a 
United  States  citizen,  and  that  she  was  a  citizen  and  the 
elective   franchise   a   privilege   of   citizenship.    Hence 
Missouri  violated   the   Constitution   by  den3dng   this 
privilege.     The    court    specifically    acknowledged    this 
woman  to  be  a  citizen  and  thus  entitled  to  all  the 
privileges  and  immunities  guaranteed  by  the  Constitu- 

^  United  States  v.  Anthony,  Fed.  Cases  14459. 
'  Minor  v.  Happersett,  2i*Wall  162. 


Disfranchising  the  Negro  195 

tion.  But  what  is  most  significant,  the  court  declared 
that  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  did  not  add  to  these 
privileges  and  immunities.  The  right  of  suffrage  never 
had  been  considered  such  a  privilege  and  the  Fourteenth 
Amendment  did  not  alter  the  situation.  The  court 
further  pointed  out  that  the  language  of  the  Fourteenth 
Amendment  itself  provided  the  best  possible  evidence 
in  support  of  the  contention  that  the  right  of  suffrage 
was  not  intended  to  be  established,  for  it  contem- 
plates the  possibility  of  reducing  the  suffrage  in  the 
various  states  and  provides  for  certain  action  in  that 
event. 

These  two  cases  completely  disposed  of  the  false 
argument  that  the  war  amendments  conferred  suffrage 
upon  anyone.  No  new  privileges  were  added  to  those 
already  involved  in  United  States  citizenship. 

But  while  the  court  was  calmly  disposing  of  this 
aspect  of  the  suffrage  question,  raised  in  states  where 
reconstruction  had  not  been  applied  and  in  cases  not 
involving  negroes,  events  were  rapidly  transpiring  in  the 
South  which  brought  the  suffrage  question  sharply  before 
the  comrts  in  a  different  manner.  It  is  necessary  to 
trace  at  least  briefly  these  events. 

The  process  of  Redemption  began  almost  as  soon  as 
the  reconstructed  governments  were  put  in  operation. 
Southerndts  were  determined  to  redeem  their  states  from 
black  control,  and  within  a  decade  after  the  war  all  the 
state  governments  were  back  in  the  hands  of  white  ' 
men.^  This  necessarily  involved  a  more  or  less  forcible 
exclusion  of  the  blacks,  certainly  discountenanced  by  the  j 
war  amendments;  but  the  process  went  on  nevertheless.  ^ 

'  Yale  Law  Review,  XTV,  41. 


196  Suffrage  injhe  United  States 

Even  before  the  end  of  the  war  it  is  significant  that 
in  West  Virginia  all  the  political  troubles  and  bitter 
strife  were  between  the  whites  and  largely  concerned 
the  policy  of  excluding  southern  sympathizers  from  the 
polls. ^  The  negro  was  not  a  factor  even  in  spite  of  the 
manifest  tendency  of  congressional  policy  to  make  him 
such.  But  there  never  was  a  time  in  West  Virginia 
when  negro  suffrage  was  popular  even  with  Republicans. 
They  side-stepped  and  merely  supported  it  as  a  national 
issue.  The  Democrats  won  a  sweeping  victory  in  1870 
by  hotly  condemning  the  Fifteenth  Amendment  and 
negro  suffrage  and  demanding  the  abolition  of  disability 
against  secessionist  whites. 

Exactly  the  same  process  was  at  work  in  the  strictly 

southern  states,  where  a  little  more  time  was  needed  to 

recover  from  the  shock  of  reconstruction.     But  finally 

the  white  men  won  control  in  every  state.^    White 

I  ascendancy  was  the  more  easily  accomplished  inasmuch 

'  as  Congress  had  passed  an  Amnesty  Act,  May  22,  1872, 

,  which  for  the  most  part  removed  all  the  disabilities 

j  contained  in  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  on  those  who 

supported  the  Confederacy. 

However,  in  order  to  maintain,  ascendancy  it  was 
desirable  and  expedient  to  keep  the  negro  from  exercising 
the  suffrage.  This  the  southerner  set  out  to  do  by 
various    interesting    methods.     The    activities    of    the 

^  Yale  Law  Review,  XIV,  41. 

"  Appleton  makes  a  record  of  the  date  on  which  each  of  the  southern 
states  returned  the  Democratic  party  to  control  and  sent  white  men  to 
Congress:  Georgia,  1870  (p.  341);  North  Carolina,  1870  (p.  553);  Tennes- 
see, 1870  (p.  710);  Virginia,  1870  (p.  746);  Texas,  1873  (P-  739) J  Alabama, 
1874  (p.  17);  Arkansas,  1874  (p.  51);  Mississippi,  1875  (P-  517);  Florida, 
J876  (p.  304);  Louisiana,  1876  (p.  493);  South  Carolioa,  1876  (p.  304), 


Disfranchising  the  Negro  197 

^Ku-Klux  have  been  immortalized  in  JaodL^and  play. 
Less  dramatic  were  the  practices  of  brute  violence  and 
intimidation,  clever  manipulation  of  ballots  and  ballot 
boxes,  the  deliberate  theft  of  ballot  boxes,  false  counting 
of  votes,  repeating,  the  use  of  ''tissue"  ballots,  illegal 
arrests  the  day  before  election,  and  the  sudden  removing 
of  the  polls.  All  the  many  expedients  that  clever  men 
could  devise  were  used  to  render  ineffective  the 
attempted  voting  of  the  negro.  By  one  means  or  v, 
another  the  desire  of  Congress  to  secure  suffrage  for  the 
negro  was  utterly  defeated. 

The  South  sought  to  justify  this  process  of  exclusion^^^^,^ 
The  firm  conviction  grew  and  crystallized  in  the  minds 
of  the  southerners  that  the  negro,  being  of  an  inferior 
race,  suffered  under  a  natural  incapacity  to  perform   [ 
political  duties.^    Here  is  found  the  beginning  of  the;^^ 
negro  problem  as  it  exists  today.     The  real  objection 
to  negro  suffrage  was  not  a  dislike  of  an  ignorant  elec- 
torate but  a  keen  apprehension  that  negroes  enjoying 
political   power   would   utterly   demoralize   the   stated     . 
Some  leading  negroes  have  concurred  in  this  belief  and       ^l 
have  urged  their  fellows  not  to  insist  upon  exercising 
political  power  .^    They  emphasize  the  evil  results  of 
negro  suffrage  and  active  participation  in  politics  and 
deplore  the  fact  that  good  laborers  and  artisans  are 
spoiled  to  make  wretched  politicians.     Another  purely 
utilitarian  consideration  from  the  negro's  point  of  view 
is  that  he  would  probably  gain  more  in  the  long  run  by 
submitting  to  white  control. 

^  Pol.  Sci.  Quar.,  XVIII,  484. 

'  G.  R.  Riley,  Philosophy  of  Negro  Suffrage,  pp.  34-55. 


iqS  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

Another  argument  in  defense  of  the  policy  of  driving 
out  the  negro  is  developed  by  certain  writers/  It  is 
said  that  many  of  the  better  element  in  southern  states 
wanted  the  negro  disfranchised  in  order  that  they  might 
overcome  the  corrupt  group  of  professional  politicians 
in  their  own  party,  d^  was  absolutely  necessary  for  all 
whites  to  stand  together  if  the  negroes  voted,  in  order 
to  avoid  the  menace  of  black  control^  But  the  solid 
white  group  was  manipulated  by  corrupt  politicians. 
If  the  negro  were  disfranchised,  the  better  element  of 
whites  could  cope  with  these  undesirables  and  clean  up 
politics.  Until  that  time  the  need  of  self-preservation 
required  them  all  to  stand  together.  And  a  very  sig- 
nificant outcome  of  the  suppression  of  the  negro  vote 
was  the  break  from  white  bosses.  The  better  class  no 
longer  was  obliged  to  submit  to  corrupt  domination  in 
order  to  save  itself  from  the  negroes. 

Champions  of  the  negro,  on  the  other  hand,  pointed 

out  that  the  men  of  the  South  had  failed  to  prove  that 

hey  were  the  negro's  best  friends.     It  was  said  that  the 

negro  needed  the  suffrage  in  order  to  defend  himself 

from  persecution.     The  South  was  his  best  friend  only 

/when  he  consented  to  be  a  virtual  slave.  A  comment  on 
the  activities  of  white  men  in  driving  out  the  negro  vote 
occurs  in  a  paper  of  the  American  Negro  Academy  and 

^s  summed  up  in  this  way:    ^'The  significance  of  the 

undoing  of  reconstruction  is  that  ....  it  marked  the 

arrogant  reassertion  of  the  malignant  and  desperate 

purpose  of  the  southern  oligarchy,  trained  in  the  absolu- 

1     tion  |of  slave-mastery,  to  despoil  the  negro  of  the  rights 

\^  citizenship,  and  to  reduce  him  to  a  state  of  serfdom,"* 

^  North  Am.  Rev.,  CLXXV,  534;  Pol  Sci.  Quar.,  XXI,  185, 
» No.  6,  p.  13. 


/. 


Disfranchising  the  Negro  199 

In  fact,  the  war  had  scarcely  ended  when  southern 
states  began  to  manifest  their  friendly  attitude  toward 
the  negro  and  pass  legislation  for  his  special  benefit.^ 
In  Florida  in  1866  negroes  could  be  arrested  if  they  had 
no  visible  means  of  support,  or  led  an  ^'idle,  immoral,  or 
profligate  course  of  life."  They  could  be  whipped,  put 
in  pillory,  and  bound  out  in  service  by  the  courts.  In 
Virginia  any  justice  of  the  peace  could  issue  a  warrant 
for  a  negro  to  be  brought  before  him,  and  if  the  court 
found  him  to  be  a  vagrant  he  could  be  bound  out  to 
service.  A  vagrant  was  one  who  lived  idly  and  refused 
to  work  for  current  wages.  In  Louisiana  any  justice 
of  the  peace  could  have  a  negro  brought  before  him,  and 
if  the  court  was  satisfied  by  "competent  testimony" 
that  the  fellow  was  a  vagrant  he  could  be  bound  out. 

Of  course  such  acts  as  these  did  not  prevail  after  the 
reconstruction  governments  were  in  control,  but  when 
the  whites  got  back  in  power  the  same  spirit  manifested 
itself  in  somewhat  less  offensive  and  more  covert  ways. 
The  inferior  courts  of  justice,  the  pettiest  officials,  and 
those  representatives  of  the  government  with  whom  the 
negro  was  in  constant  and  intimate  contact  were  much 
inclined  to  persecute  and  discriminate  against  him  in  all 
his  petty  conflicts  with  the  state,  and  all  this  chiefly 
because  he  came  to  have  no  power  at  the  polls.  But  the 
question  arises  at  once :  How  did  the  South  succeed  in 
excluding  the  negro  from  the  polls  in  view  of  the  war 
amendments?  Did  these  illegal  practices  persist  and 
effectively  achieve  their  end  ? 

In  brief,  they  did  succeed.  They  succeeded  for 
twenty  years  or  more  or  until   the   southern  states 

'  McPherson,  Documents  on  Reconstruction ^  p.  39. 


200  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

undertook  to  revise  their  constitutions  and  make  the 
exclusion  of  negroes  really  legal.  However,  these 
extra-legal  or  illegal  practices  could  not  have  persisted 
had  it  not  been  for  the  attitude  of  the  federal  courts. 
Tribunals  very  early  began  to  exhibit  a  tendency  to  keep 
''hands  off''  the  southerners  and  not  force  the  issue  with 
them.  All  the  burden  of  proof  was  laid  upon  the  negro 
to  show  that  he  was  being  denied  a  right,  and  the  courts 
took  advantage  of  technicalities  and  ambiguities  to  make 
the  negro's  problem  all  the  harder. 

In  Kansas  in  1870  a  case  came  up  in  which  it  appeared 
that  a  large  number  of  negroes  were  not  admitted  to  the 
poUs.'^  In  bringing  their  suit  they  set  forth  the  essential 
facts  concerning  their  qualifications  as  electors,  stating 
that  they  were  twenty-one  years  of  age  and  had  lived  in 
Kansas  six  months.  But  they  neglected  to  state  that 
they  had  lived  in  the  ward  thirty  days,  a  fact  which  had 
nothing  to  do  with  the  case  and  which  nobody  ques- 
tioned. Yet  their  case  was  thrown  out  on  this  techni- 
cality. It  was  obvious  that  the  court  did  not  want  to 
investigate  the  real  merits  of  the  case. 

In  187 1  a  case  came  up  in  South  Carolina.^  Congress 
had  passed  an  act  designed  to  protect  negroes  in  the 
exercise  of  suffrage,  to  protect  them  against  physical 
violence  and  intimidation.  Certain  white  men  had 
visited  a  negro  on  his  premises  and  had  prevailed  upon 
him  with  great  vigor  to  stay  away  from  the  polls.  But 
the  court  very  much  limited  the  intended  scope  of  the 
act  by  holding  that  the  right  to  be  secure  in  one's  own 
house  is  not  derived  from  the  federal  Constitution  but 

^  Anthony  v.  Halderman,  7  Kan.  50. 

'  Untied  States  v.  Crosby,  Fed.  Cases  14893.      [ 


Disfranchising  the  Negro  201 

from  common  law  before  the  Constitution  existed. 
Hence  neither  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  nor  the  act 
of  Congress  passed  under  it  could  be  invoked  here  to 
protect  the  individual  from  violence  in  his  own  home. 
Congress  could  not  extend  the  federal  action  so  far. 
Thereby  the  federal  courts  refused  to  punish  white  men 
for  molesting  negroes  on  their  own  premises  and  hence 
left  open  a  door  to  much  intimidation. 

In  1874  another  case  was  decided  which  limited  even 
further  the  power  of  Congress  to  guarantee  the  negro  his 
right  of  suffrage.^  Congress  had  undertaken  to  pass  an 
act  to  punish  whoever  hindered  a  citizen  in  any  way,  by 
bribery,  intimidation,  or  other  means,  from  voting  at  any 
election  on  account  of  race  or  color.  Certain  election 
officials  in  Kentucky  had  refused  to  receive  ballots  from 
negroes,  and  the  case  came  up  for  decision.  The  court 
started  out  with  the  proposition  already  established  that 
the  Fifteenth  Amendment  did  not  confer  the  right  of 
suffrage  on  anyone.  This  particular  case  concerned 
state  elections,  and  the  court  stated  that  the  Fifteenth 
Amendment  was  the  only  foundation  Congress  had  for 
legislating  concerning  state  elections.  The  amendment 
forbade  discrimination  only  on  account  of  certain  facts — 
race  and  color.  Therefore  Congress  could  proceed  to 
punish  only  the  act  which  was  forbidden — the  dis- 
crimination on  account  of  race  or  color.  But  the  act  of 
Congress  undertook  to  do  much  more  and  sought  to 
punish  bribery  and  intimidation.  The  implication  was 
that  an  election  official  could  refuse  a  ballot  offered  by  a 
citizen  for  any  reason  he  chose  except  race  or  color,  and 
no  act  of  Congress  could  reach  him.     Of  course  it  was  1 

^  United  States  v.  Reese,  92  U.S.  214. 


202  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

practically  impossible  to  prove  that  the  refusal  was 
on  account  of  race  or  color.  The  same  point  was  fur- 
ther elucidated  several  years  later  (1881)  in  an  Indiana 
case.'  The  court  held  that  "it  is  not  an  offense  against 
the  laws  of  the  United  States  to  prevent  a  citizen,  white 
or  black,  from  voting  at  a  state  election,  by  violence  or 
otherwise."  To  make  it  a  matter  for  federal  investiga- 
tion the  violence  must  have  been  done  on  account  of  race 
or  color.  Obviously  the  offending  parties  could  allege 
any  other  motive  for  the  attack  and  immediately  be 
reHeved  of  federal  penalties. 

The  federal  courts  have  been  thoroughly  consistent 
on  this  point  even  into  the  twentieth  century.  In  1901 
they  were  again  called  upon  to  rule  on  this  matter  and 
again  insisted  that  Congress  could  not  protect  the  negro 
from  actions  aimed  to  keep  him  from  the  polls  unless  they 
could  be  shown  deliberately  to  violate  the  terms  of  the 
Fifteenth  Amendment.  The  court  said,  "Every  wrong- 
ful obstruction  of  the  suffrage  of  the  black  man  at  a  state 
election  is  not  on  account  of  race  or  color.  "^  The  offen- 
sive act  may  have  been  based  on  some  other  reason,  and 
if  so  Congress  and  federal  authorities  had  no  jurisdiction. 

Indeed  the  scope  of  congressional  power  was  very 
much  limited  even  in  respect  to  purely  federal  elections. 
In  a  Kentucky  case  the  court  pointed  out  that  the 
Fifteenth  Amendment  simply  forbade  state  or  federal 
action  intended  to  restrict  the  right  of  suffrage — and  not 
the  action  of  private  individuals  not  representing  the 
state.3    The  court  held  that  it  was  the  intent  of  the 

^  United  States  v.  Amsden,  10  Biss.  283. 
'  Lackey  v.  United  States,  107  Fed.  114. 

^  James  v.  Bowman,  190  U.S.  127;  Karem  v.  United  States,  121 
Fed.  250. 


Disfranchising  the  Negro  203 

amendment  to  prohibit  legislation  discriminating  on 
account  of  race  or  color,  and  that  the  states  themselves 
must  be  left  to  punish  private  individuals  who  obstructed 
the  suffrage.  Naturally  the  state  authorities  took  no 
notice  of  these  obstructionist  activities.  Congress  tried 
to  prevent  them,  but  the  federal  courts  stood  in  the  way.  ^^ 

In  a  word,  the  courts  asked  the  negro  to  prove  whafV 
everybody  knew  to  be  a  fact — that  he  was  being  kept  I 
from  the  polls  on  account  of  his  race  and  color.     And  V 
the  unfortunate  black  found  it  quite  impossible  to  prove\ 
that  white  ruffians  waylaid  and  beat  him  because  he  wasj 
a  negro  and  intended  to  vote.     It  is  hard  to  get  away 
from  the  fact  that  the  court  decisions  violate  the  spirit  of 
the  war  amendments.    As  one  writer  has  put  it,  ^'Soph-        . 
istry  and  fallacious  pretense  are  invoked  to  overcome  ^3^-^ 
express  constitutional  mandates. '  '^  - 

Thus  throughout  the  period  from  1870  to  1890  the  "|. . 
southerners  contented  themselves  with  excluding  the 
negro  by  such  means  as  have  been  discussed.  During 
this  period  nine  of  the  southern  states  drafted  new 
constitutions,  chiefly  to  get  rid  of  the  most  offensive 
provisions  contained  in  the  reconstruction  documents. 
Very  little  of  interest  was  written  into  these  constitutions 
concerning  suffrage.  Virginia  and  Tennessee  made  new 
constitutions  in  1870.  Virginia  provided  for  the  oath  of 
allegiance  and  continued  to  exclude  the  long  list  of  petty 
officers  excluded  by  so  many  of  the  reconstruction  con- 
stitutions. Y 

In  the  Tennessee  constitution  at  this  date  there  AM 
appears  a  provision  that  voters  must  show  evidence  of  \  • 
having  paid  a  poll  tax.    This  provision  had  been  csmiea 

'  Yale  Law  Review^  XIII,  479. 


204  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

in  the  convention  fifty-six  to  eighteen,^  but  it  was  very 

hotly  denounced  for  obvious  reasons.     The  principle  of 

j  any   sort    of    tax    requirement    was    condemned.     In 

i  particular  the  vicious  character  of  this  measure  was 

^  denounced  because  judges  of  election  would  easily  be 

satisfied  that  white  Democrats  had  paid  their  taxes  but 

negroes   would   have   to   produce   unimpeachable   tax 

receipts.     If  the  measure  had  been  sincere  it  would 

khave  specifically  required  the  presentation  of  a  receipt. 
Negroes  were  notoriously  careless  about  keeping  their 
receipts,  but  a  loophole  was  left  for  the  careless  white  man. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  the  minority  report 
on  the  suffrage  measure  was  not  in  favor  of  abolishing 
the  poll-tax  requirement  but  favored  total  exclusion  of 
the  negro  if  possible.  This  report  was  full  of  bombast 
and  religion  and  was  characteristic  of  the  irreconcilable 
attitude  toward  the  negro  voter.  It  exhorts  the  con- 
vention not  "to  deny  the  Truth,  and  blindly  rush,  in 
defiance  of  the  natural  law  of  God,  to  the  confusion  of 
our  race  and  the  destruction  of  the  government  our 
fathers  left  us.''^* 

In  1874  and  1875  Arkansas  and  Alabama  drew  up  new 
constitutions  without  special  suffrage  provisions.  How- 
ever, the  Arkansas  constitution  was  amended  in  1893 
to  provide  for  showing  poll-tax  receipts  as  a  prerequisite 
to  voting.  Of  course  this  hit  the  negroes  hardest.  In 
1875  a  constitutional  convention  was  held  in  North 
Carolina,  and  an  attempt  was  made  to  get  rid  of  the 
poll-tax  requirement.  But  it  was  not  successful.  The 
new  Texas  constitution  in  1876  contained  nothing  of. 
special  interest. 

^  Tenn.  Conv.,  1870,  Journal,  p.  177.        ^  Ibid.,  p.  179. 


Disfranchising  the  Negro  205 

In  the  Georgia  constitution  of  1877  it  was  provided 
that  all  taxes  must  be  paid  as  a  prerequisite  to  voting. 
This  measure  had  been  vigorously  opposed  in  con- 
vention, and  the  consideration  was  raised  that  vast 
numbers  of  negroes  would  fall  into  the  hands  of  corrupt 
poHticians  who  would  pay  their  taxes  for  them.  Another 
provision  likely  to  hit  the  negroes  hard  was  that  men 
could  be  disfranchised  for  a  crime  involving  moral  tur-  ^ 
pitude.  This  was  exceedingly  vague  but  could  easily 
be  construed  to  fit  the  negroes'  crimes. 

The  Louisiana  constitution  of  1879  contained  nothing 
of  particular  significance.  The  same  can  be  said  of  the 
Florida  constitution  of  1885.  However,  this  constitution 
permitted  the  legislature  to  impose  a  capitation-tax 
requirement  if  it  saw  fit.  This  point  was  the  subject  of 
much  debate  in  the  convention.  The  committee  on 
suffrage  had  before  it  a  great  number  of  petitions  for  and 
against  the  poll-tax  requirement  and  wished  to  submit 
the  matter  to  a  referendum.  But  this  the  convention 
would  not  do,  and  the  burden  was  thrown  upon  the 
legislature. 

This  review  of  the  constitutions  up  to  1890  shows  ^] 
that  no  attempts  were  made  legally  to  exclude  the 
negro  from  the  suffrage.  However,  many  among  the 
best  element  in  the  South  had  become  tired  of  the  force 
and  fraud  methods,  although  they  believed  them  neces- 
sary until  legal  means  could  be  found.  They  began 
now  to  turn  their  attention  to  the  finding  of  legal 
means.  ^^^  ^^ 

It  should  be  remembered  that  the  slavery  issue  and  I 
the  negro-suffrage  issue,  in  the  minds  of  many  people 
who  feel  most  deeply,  are  above  constitutional  and  legal 


2o6  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

sanctions,  like  reKgion/  A  very  upright,  law-abiding, 
honest,  and  highly  moral  person  will  ignore  the  law 
when  it  touches  his  religion.  High-minded  aboHtion- 
ists  would  countenance  no  law  that  protected  slavery 
regardless  of  its  sanction.  Just  so  with  the  Fifteenth 
Amendment.  The  slavery  issue  is  projected  into  the 
negro-suffrage  issue,  and  thoroughly  righteous  men  in 
the  South  do  not  hesitate  to  evade  the  law  despite  its 
high  sanction.  Thus  we  see  that  the  suffrage  question 
to  be  treated  in  its  most  significant  aspects  must  lead  us 
far  from  constitutional  law.  Probably  a  majority  of 
southerners  sincerely  believe  that  restriction  of  the 
u  colored  vote  is  the  very  starting-point  of  all  responsible 
/   statesmanship  for  them. 

These  twenty  years  of  experience  had  also  brought 
many  people  to  a  realization  of  the  practical  limitations 
of  formal  law.  There  were  large  areas  in  the  South 
easily  controlled  by  a  very  small  minority  of  white  men. 
The  blacks,  who  greatly  outnumbered  them,  submitted 
to  political  domination  with  very  Kttle  protest.  Of 
what  use  is  law  to  support  such  indolent  and  careless 

{citizens?  If  the  negro  lacks  the  ambition  to  take 
advantage  of  the  law  which  is  on  his  side  and  is  vastly 
superior  in  numbers,  it  is  a  question  whether  he  really 
desires  the  ballot.  The  small  white  minorities  could  not 
withstand  for  a  single  day  the  serious  and  determined 
efforts  of  the  blacks  to  gain  control.  White  men  have 
controlled  the  situation  repeatedly  when  odds  were 
overwhelmingly  against  them.  In  the  historic  past  men 
wrenched  control  from  their  masters  and  ruled  them- 
selves because  they  were  convinced  that  it  was  their 

^  Am.  Pol.  Sci.  Rev.f  I,  20. 


Disfranchising  the  Negro  207 

right,  and  they  had  the  hardihood  to  fight  and  win.. 
Until  the  negro  develops  a  real  honest,  deep  desire  t3\ 
vote  and  is  willing  to  assert  himself  and  take  that  power 
which  the  law  holds  out  to  him,  his  cause,  as  it  were,  is 
almost  hopeless.  Such  a  situation  is  beyond  the  pale  of  / 
law.  Defenders  of  the  negro's  cause  invoke  our  sym- 
pathy for  his  plight  when  he  is  scared  away  from  the 
polls  by  threats  of  violence,  and  solemn-visaged  lawyers 
stand  in  court  to  defend  a  brawny  negro  who  had  his 
head  broken  when  he  wished  to  vote.  But  pity  almost 
turns  to  derision  when  one  thinks  upon  the  noble 
sacrifices  of  those  who  in  the  past  have  won  poKtica 
power  at  the  cost  of  life  and  Hmb  and  untold  persecution. 
Shakespeare's  supreme  contempt  for  "thou  action- taking 
knave"  might  well  be  directed  upon  a  physically  superior 
race,  with  all  the  law  upon  their  side,  who  still  He  meekly 
down  and  cry,  "We  are  mistreated."  Constitutional 
amendments  and  state  laws  cannot  instil  vigor,  strength, 
determination,  and  conviction  of  right  into  the  souls  of 
men.  Laws  and  constitutions  are  the  outgrowths  o 
such  virtues.  When  the  negro  acquires  theni  no  doub^ 
the  problem  of  his  suffrage  will  be  settled. /Butin  the 
meantime  southern  whites  proceed  to  arrange  suffrage 
laws  according  to  their  own  desires. 

It  occurred  to  southern  statesmen  that  there  were 
about  four  perfectly  legal  and  respectable  ways  to 
eHminate  the  negro  from  politics.^  One  was  what  may 
be  called  "centralization."  A  great  number  of  elective 
offices  could  be  abandoned  and  the  governor  allowed  to 
appoint  incumbents  in  their  stead.  Hence  the  negro 
vote  would  have  no  opportunity  to  assert  itself,  once  the 

*  Pol.  Sci.  Quar.,  IX,  692. 


2o8  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

new  system  was  established  by  the  constitution.  But 
such  a  political  organization  is  all  out  of  harmony  with 
American  tradition.  Another  way  was  to  lay  a  more  or 
^  less  heavy  tax  requirement.  A  third  was  to  make  use  of 
complex  election  laws  which  would  befuddle  the  negro, 
and  lastly  the  educational  test  was  available. 

But  all  of  these  methods  caught  a  certain  class  of 

^whites  along  with  the  negroes,  and  the  process  of  dis- 
franchising the  blacks  is  complicated  in  the  South  by 
the  presence  and  the  need  of  illiterate  foreign  labor .^ 
This  element  will  not  tolerate  being  excluded  from  the 
suffrage  any  more  than  will  the  poor  and  ignorant 
native  whites.  So  here  was  a  great  problem.  Twenty- 
five  years  after  the  war,  during  which  time  the  negroes 
had  the  support  of  state  and  federal  law,  the  South 
/T^eliberately  and  with  clearly  expressed  intention  set 
Hbout  the  business  of  constitutionally  depriving  the 
^tiegro  of  his  vote. 

^  In  1890  a  constitutional  convention  met  in  Mississippi 
and  drew  up  a  constitution  which  has  served  more  or 
less  as  a  model  for  other  states  seeking  to  circumvent  the 
war  amendments  and  legally  disfranchise  the  negro.  It 
provided  that  every  citizen  between  the  ages  of  twenty- 
one  and  sixty  must  have  paid  a  two-dollar  poll  tax  and 
be  able  to  show  his  receipt  before  he  could  vote.  After 
1892  it  was  provided  that  everyone  who  wished  to  vote 
must  be  able  to  read  the  constitution,  or  understand  it 
when  read  to  him,  or  be  able  to  give  a  reasonable  inter- 
pretation of  passages  that  might  be  read  to  him.  A 
candidate  for  suffrage  must  also  swear  that  he  will 

;_answer  truthfully  all  questions  put  to  him  concerning 
^  Proc.  Am.  Pol.  Set.  Assoc,  II,  164. 


Disfranchising  the  Negro  209 

his  right  to  vote.  Citizens  may  be  disfranchised  on 
account  of  conviction  of  theft,  arson,  and  various  other 
crimes.  ,  ^     y 

On  their"  face  these  provisions  gave  small  hint  of  the  '^    / 
obstacles  that  lurked  for  the  negro  voter.    In  the  first     / 
place  these  provisions  capitalized  the  careless  propensities  / 
of  the  negro.    The  poll-tax  requirement  is  m  no  sen^^-ar 
discrimination  against  him,  but  he  might  be  called  upon 
to  show  his  receipt,  and  this  document  he  was  likely  to 
have  lost.    It  is  impossible  to  tell  the  number  of  negroes 
who  are  unable  to  vote  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  their  tax 
has  been  paid,  simply  because  they  do  not  save  the 
receipts.    The  white  man  is  seldom  asked  to  exhibit  his 
receipt,  although  of  course  he  could  be.    If  only    a 
permanent  record  of  those  who  had  paid  their  taxes 
would  be  available  to  the  election  officers  the  need  of 
receipts  could  be  obviated.    But  such  a  plan  would/ 
protect  the  negro  from  his  own  carelessness. 

The  reading  or  interpretation  test  awaits  the  negro 
who  has  paid  his  tax  and  kept  his  receipt.     If  he  can 
plainly  read  he  goes  past  this  stage;  if  not  he  finds  it 
exceedingly  difficult  to  convince  the  election  officials 
that  he  understands  the  constitution  when  it  is  read  to 
him,  and  his  interpretation  of  excerpts  seldom  passes 
muster.    The  illiterate  negro  is  ruled  out  by  administra-  ,? 
tive  discretion,  while  the  equally  ignorant  white  can  I  j^ 
easily  satisfy  the  same  officers  of  his  ability  to  compre-  }J 
hend.    As  a  last  resort  the  oath  remains  to  trip  the 
negro  up.    He  swears  to  answer  truthfully  all  questions 
concerning  his  right  to  vote.    Detailed,  hair-splitting 
questions  may  be  put  to  him,  and  a  trifling  deviation 
from  the  truth  renders  him  guilty  of  perjury,  for  which 


2IO  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

offense  he  may  be  disfranchised.    Thus  it  will  be  seen 

that   this  constitution  paved   the  way  for  wholesale 

exclusion  of  the  negroes  on  perfectly  legal  grounds.    The 

/strongest  point,  of  course,  was  the  discretionary  power 

/  vested  in  election  officials  to  decide  whether  or  not  an 

;    illiterate  person  understood  the  constitution  and  could 

Lgive  a  reasonable  interpretation  of  it.     Its  weakness 

,        was  that  it  did  not  fully  protect  the  illiterate  white  from 

.  .the  same  discrimination.     For  this  reason  the  Mississippi 

constitution  was  not  entirely  satisfactory,  and  it  took 

several  years  to  develop  more  effective  measures.     The 

ultimate  ideal,  of  course,  was  to  exclude  all  negroes  and 

no  whites. 

The  records  of  the  convention  which  drew  this 
constitution  clearly  indicate  that  many  men  were  quite 
dissatisfied  with  the  discretionary  power  vested  in 
officials.  Many  worthy  men  wanted  a  legitimate 
educational  test,  honestly  administered,  and  proposed 
to  organize  some  kind  of  tribunal  for  the  distinct  purpose 
of  impartially  deciding  who  could  satisfy  the  test  and 
who  could  not.  Others  preferred  to  have  no  educational 
test  at  all  rather  than  to  have  it  properly  carried  out,  and 
they  won  the  day.  There  was  no  intent  to  have  it  apply 
to  whites,  and,  as  said  before,  the  weakness  of  this 
constitution  was  considered  to  lie  in  the  fact  that  it  did 
not  fully  protect  the  illiterate  white  man.  Several 
times  an  attempt  was  made  to  put  the  whole  burden  on 
the  legislature  and  leave  that  body  to  prescribe  quali- 
fications for  suffrage. 
"-/  Five  years  later  (1895)  a  convention  met  in  South 
/Carolina  which  had  before  it  the  constitution  of  Missis- 
sippi and  was  able  to  improve  upon  it  to  a  certain  extent. 


Disfranchising^the  Negro  211 

The  voter  could  be  required  to  show  evidence  of  having  \ 
paid  all  taxes  assessed  against  him,  including  the  polt- 
tax.  But  as  regards  the  educational  test  an  interesting 
innovation  was  brought  forth.  It  will  be  remembered 
that  some  means  of  protecting  the  illiterate  white  man 
was  being  sought.  This  convention  proceeded  to  fix 
the  requirement  that  every  citizen  in  order  to  vote  must 
be  able  to  read  the  constitution  or  understand  it  when 
read,  and  if  he  could  satisfy  this  condition  he  might  be 
enrolled  as  a  voter  up  to  1898.  After  that  date  he  must 
be  able  both  to  read  and  to  write  or  else  own  three  hun- 
dred dollars'  worth  of  property.  However,  previous 
to  1898  no  man  who  could  vote  in  1867,  or  the  descend- 
ants of  such,  nor  any  foreigner  naturalized  before  the 
ratification  of  this  constitution,  should  be  required  to 
pass  any  educational  test.  In  effect  this  gave  all  the 
war  veterans  and  their  descendants,  as  well  as  foreigners, 
an  opportunity  to  register  before  1898  without  passing 
an  educational  test.  Proper  discrimination  in  appl3dng 
this  test  was  supposed  to  keep  out  the  negroes  and  admit 
the  remaining  ignorant  whites  to  the  roll  of  permanent 
voters.  After  1898  a  water-tight  educational  test  was 
applied,  with  an  alternative  property  qualification. 
This  writing  test  could  be  made  particularly  severe  for 
the  negro,  for  he  must  make  out  without  a  mistake  all 
his  papers  of  application  to  be  registered.  This  con-^1 
vention  also  included  wife-beating  and  assault  with  in-  \ 
tent  to  ravish  in  the  list  of  crimes  for  which  one  could 
be  disfranchised.  These  offenses  seem  to  be  more  or 
less  common  among  negroes. 

Partly  in  extenuation  of  their  severe  treatment  of  the ' 
negroes  the  convention  had  spread  upon  its  minutes  a 


212  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

/: 

^detailed  account  of  the  graft,  fraud,  corruption,  and 

;   swindling  that  had  been  practiced  when  the  state  was 
Idominated  by  negro  voters.     This  convention  wanted 
I  the  world  to  know  just  why  it  wanted  to  get  the  negro 
(_out  of  politics/ 

The,;^hree-hundred-dollar  property  qualification  as 
y^  alt^native  to  passing  the  educational  test  is  worth 
/    special  mention.     Property  tests  of  any  kind  had  not 
[     obtained  in  the  country  for  many  years,  and  certain 
L   delegates  opposed  it,  even  as  an  alternative,  simply  as 
a  matter  of  principle.     In  reality  it  was  of  little  signifi- 
cance, because  very  rarely  would  a  man  find  himself  held 
up  on  that  test. 

In  1898  Louisiana  organized  a  convention  fully 
/conscious  of  its  paramount  duty  of  eliminating  the  negro 
^  voters  and  saving  the  illiterate  whites.  The  committee 
on  suffrage  was  so  careful  about  the  rights  of  illiterate 
white  men  that  in  its  anxiety  not  to  exclude  any  it 
proposed  quite  a  list  of  alternative  qualifications. 
Among  them  were  the  educational  test  with  the  alterna- 
tive three-hundred-dollar  property  qualification.  Those 
who  had  wives  owning  property  should  be  allowed  to 
vote;  those  registered  as  voters  in  1868,  or  who  might 
have  been  had  they  so  desired;  the  descendants  of  those 
registered  then,  or  who  might  have  been.  This  simply 
shows  the  ridiculous  extremes  to  which  these  men  were 
willing  to  go  in  order  to  protect  all  classes  of  white  men 
while  at  the  same  time  excluding  negroes. 

As  it  finally  turned  out,  the  new  constitution  pro- 
vided the  poll-tax  requirement  and  the  necessity  of 
]  showing  receipts.    Voters  must  be  able  to  read  and 
S.C.  Conv.,  1895,  Journal,  p.  443. 


r- 


Disfranchising  the  Negro  213 

write  in  some  language  or  satisfy  a  three-hundred-dollar 
property  test  as  an  alternative.  Applications  for  regis- 
tration had  to  be  made  out  in  one's  own  handwriting. 
However,  a  brief  interval  was  given  certain  classes  to 
gain  exemption  from  the  educational  and  property  test. 
Those  who  could  vote  in  1867,  or  the  descendants  of 
such,  and  naturalized  citizens  were  given  an  opportunity 
to  register  within  a  year  as  permanent  voters.  It  is 
interesting  to  note  that  the  United  States  senators  from 
Louisiana  at  this  date,  Caffey  and  McEnery,  both 
expressed  the  opinion  that  the  Louisiana  constitutional 
provisions  concerning  suffrage  would  be  declared  void 
under  the  war  amendments.^ 

In  1 90 1  Alabama,  growing  bold  over  the  success  of 
her  sister-states  during  the  past  decade,  drew  up  in 
convention  and  estabhshed  in  her  constitution  the  most 
elaborate  suffrage  requirements  that  have  ever  been  in 
force  in  the  United  States.  They  accomplished  all  that 
Mississippi,  South  Carolina,  and  Louisiana  had  accom- 
plished, and  even  more.  The  poll-tax  requirement  wasA 
fixed.  Up  to  1903  three  defined  classes  of  persons  were^ 
to  be  permitted  to  register  as  permanent  voters.  They 
were:  (i)  Those  who  had  served  in  any  of  the  wars  of 
the  United  States  from  the  Revolution  to  the  Spanish 
War.  Cofrfederate  soldiers  were  also  included  of  course. 
(2)  All  legaVl^scendants  of  men  who  had  served  in  any  of 
these  wars.  (3)  All  persons  who  were  of  good  character 
and  who  understood  the  duties  and  obligations  of  citizen- 
ship under  a  republican  form  of  government.  While  a 
considerable  number  of  negroes  might  get  in  under  these 
conditions,  certainly  no  white  man  need  be  kept  out. 

'  Harvard  Law  Review^  XIII,  290. 


214  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

After  1903  only  those  could  vote  who  were  able  to 
read  and  write  any  article  of  the  constitution  in  English 
and  who  had  worked  or  been  in  some  employment  the 
greater  part  of  the  preceding  year.  The  alternative  was 
that  any  owner,  or  husband  of  an  owner,  of  forty  acres 
of  land  in  Alabama,  on  which  he  resided;  or  any  owner, 
or  husband  of  owner,  of  property  assessed  at  three 
hundred  dollars'  value,  or  owning  personal  property 
worth  three  hundred  dollars,  on  which  taxes  had  been 
paid,  could  vote.  Then  there  was  provided  a  long  list 
of  crimes  and  immoral  practices  designed  to  catch  the 
negro.  Assault  on  wife,  adultery,  ^*or  crime  involving 
moral  turpitude,"  etc.,  or  conviction  as  a  tramp  might 
disfranchise  a  citizen. 

-^  It  must  be  constantly  borne  in  mind  that  one  must 
read  between  the  lines  of  these  constitutional  provisions. 
The  mere  letter  of  the  law  may  give  no  hint  of  the  abuse 
that  is  possible  under  it.  In  Alabama  the  legislature 
later  provided  that  on  challenge  a  voter  must  take  an 
oath  declaring  himself  quahfied  to  vote,  in  the  minutest 
detail,  and  that  he  is  not  guilty  of  any  of  the  long  hst  of 
crimes  mentioned.'  This  oath  must  be  supported  by 
someone  known  to  the  election  official.  Obviously  the 
negro  is  at  a  very  great  disadvantage.  There  is  not 
space  to  go  into  these  various  expedients,  but  there  are 
many  opportunities  to  construe  and  warp  when  there 
is  the  will  to  do  it. 

^^  Thus  it  was  right  at  the  beginning  of  the  twentieth 
century  that  the  South  came  forth  with  the  bold  deter- 
jmination  to  disfranchise  the  negro.  In  the  Alabama 
convention  the  president's  opening  address  outlined  the 

^  Ala.  Code,  1907,  Vol.  I,  sec.  408. 


Disfranchising  the  Negro  215 

troubles  that  had  come  through  negro  suffrage.     He 
justified  illegal  methods  of  excluding  them  only  as  one 
would  justify  a  revolution.     He  discussed  the  various  ) 
reputable  means  of  reducing  the  negro  vote  and  declared^ 
it  the  chief  problem  of  the  convention.  ^ 

The  ''grandfather"  clause  permitting  descendants 
of  certain  persons  to  register  previous  to  1903  stirred  up  '< 
much  disapproval.  Although  it  was  only  a  temporary,  \^ 
provision  men  did  not  Hke  the  principle  of  it.  In  the 
words  of  the  minority  report,  ''It  does  not  prescribe  a 
quahfication  bearing  any  proper  relation  to  the  capacity 
of  the  voter  to  understand  and  discharge  the  respon- 
sibiHties  of  the  elective  franchise,  but  fixes  an  arbitrary 
status  depending  solely  upon  his  descent  from  an 
ancestry  over  which  he  had,  and  has,  no  control,  and 
which  is  impossible  of  attainment  by  any  exertion  on 
his  part."  For  this  reason  it  was  considered  quite 
undemocratic. 

In  the  following  year  North  Carolina  amended  her 
constitution  of  1876  by  introducing  an  educational  test 
together  with  a  grandfather  clause  for  temporary  appH- 
cation.  Voters  must  be  able  to  read  and  write  any 
section  of  the  constitution  in  English.  But  prior  to 
1909  any  person  who  could  vote  in  1867,  or  the  lineal 
descendant  of  such  person,  need  not  satisfy  the  educa- 
tional test  and  could  register  permanently. 

The  last  and  in  many  ways  the  most  illuminating 
and  significant  step  taken  by  one  of  the  ex-Confed- 
erate states  to  disfranchise  the  negro  came  in  Virginia 
in  1902.  It  is  well  worth  while  considering  the  work 
of   the  convention  which   drew  this  constitution,   for 

^  Ala.  Conv.,  1901,  Journal,  p.  13. 


< 


\ 


2i6  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

it  gives  the  best  view  of  the  situation  as  it  exists  in 
the  South  today.  These  delegates  met  as  usual,  with 
the  avowed  intention  of  excluding  the  negroes  from  the 
suffrage.  As  one  writer  has  said,  they  intended  to 
give  permanent  and  legal  form  to  existing  conditions.^ 
The  negro  did  not  vote  in  Virginia  to  any  great  extent, 
and  they  wished  to  make  his  exclusion  legal.  Where  he 
did  vote  conditions  seemed  to  be  intolerable.  A  most 
impassioned  plea  was  delivered  in  the  convention  begging 
the  delegates  to  relieve  Virginia  of  the  blight  of  negro 

V  suffrage.^  It  was  said  that  the  real  greatness  of  the 
state  was  being  obliterated.  The  able  statesmen  were 
overwhelmed  by  the  illiterate  negroes.  All  ambition  in 
the  white  men  was  smothered,  for  their  efforts  came  to 
naught  in  a  state  where  there  were  large  numbers  of 
negro  voters.  White  men  in  the  Black  Belt  were  unable 
to  contribute  anything  to  the  statesmanship  of  their 
time.  The  state  could  not  take  its  proper  place  as  a 
leader  in  the  nation.  Reference  was  made  to  the  gal- 
lant struggle  of  the  white  men  of  this  state  during  the 
past  thirty  years  against  negro  misrule  and  corruption. 
Relief  from  this  bitter  struggle  was  sought  in  appropriate 
constitutional  provisions.     It  was  a  terrible  humiliation 

,  to  proud  Virginians,  conscious  of  their  glorious  history, 
to  reahze  that  stupid,  vicious  negroes  had  such  a  large 
hand  in  the  control  of  the  state  government.  The  atti- 
tude of  this  Virginia  convention  undoubtedly  reflects 
the  situation  as  it  exists  in  the  South  today.  South- 
ern white  men  are  positively  determined  to  exclude  the 
negro  and  only  hope  that  they  will  be  allowed  to  do  it 
quietly  and  legally. 

^  Pol.  Sci.  Quar.,  XVIII,  486. 

3  Virginia  Conv.,  1901-2,  Debates,  p.  2987. 


Disfranchising  the  Negro  217 

The  suffrage-committee  report  in  this  convention  was 
debated  before  a  conference  of  Democratic  members  from 
three  to  five  times  a  week  from  October  12,  1901, 
to  March  7,  1902,  and  was  then  considered  in  daily 
conferences  of  those  members  from  March  8  to  28;  and 
on  March  31  it  was  taken  up  for  consideration  by  the 
convention  and  the  whole  thing  threshed  over  again. 
Many  of  the  speeches  were  repeated. 

The  arguments  of  the  committee  chairman  when 
presenting  his  report  are  simply  startling.^  His  whole 
manner,  his  frank,  unblushing,  ingenuous  treatment  of 
the  matter,  gives  striking  evidence  of  the  uncompromis- 
ing, determined  position  that  the  southern  whites  now 
assume  toward  this  problem.  He  declared  that  the 
literacy  test  would  not  be  a  sufficient  safeguard,  because 
illiteracy  is  fast  disappearing  among  the  negroes.  He 
speaks  of  the  state  being  *' threatened"  with  the  dis- 
appearance of  illiteracy  among  the  colored  population. 
It  was  the  intention  of  the  convention  to  disfranchise 
the  negro  whether  he  was  literate  or  not.  Reference  is 
made  to  the  rapid  advancement  of  negro  education  and 
hence  the  insufficiency  of  the  educational  test. 

Again  he  says,  ''We  listened  to  our  friends  across  the 
mountains  and  we  heard  them  tell  us  a  grandfather  clause 
would  not  save  all  their  people."  They  meant  that  all 
the  white  illiterates  could  not  trace  their  ancestry  satis- 
factorily. The  committee  was  determined  that  no  white 
men  should  be  sacrificed  if  it  were  possible  to  help  them. 
The  property  qualification  would  rule  out  large  numbers 
who  could  not  get  under  a  "descendants  of  veterans" 
clause.    Also  it  would  impede  immigration.     Hence  the 

^  Ibid.,  p.  2965. 


2i8  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

committee,  ''anxious  to  do  equal  and  exact  justice  to  all 
the  citizens  of  the  state,"  had  to  look  for  other  methods. 
A  plan  was  suggested  to  let  every  man  holding  a  license 
indicating  that  he  was  engaged  in  some  profession  or 
trade  vote  on  the  strength  of  such  license,  the  intention 
being  not  to  license  laborers — "but  the  people  told  us 
the  largest  portion  of  their  population,  which  is  white 
men,  are  manual  laborers."     And  so  the  patriotic  com- 
mittee, true  to  the  principle  of  saving  the  white  men's 
suffrage,   had  to   abandon  that  scheme.     Finally  the 
^committee  took  refuge  in  the  "understanding"  clause, 
that  voters  must  be  able  to  understand  the  constitution 
when  read  to  them.     The  committee  expressed  regret 
that  some  negroes  might  get  in  under  this  clause,  but  it 
could  not  be  helped.     The  chairman  said,  "I  expect 
f  r^^e  examination  with  which  the  black  man  will  be 
^1    confronted   to    be    inspired   by   the    same    spirit   that 
Nf  !    inspires  every  man  upon  this  floor  and  in  this  conven- 
tion.    I  do  not  expect  an  impartial  administration  of  this 
C._cLause.^^ 

The  highly  significant  thing  is  that  this  man  spoke  for 
the  majority — ^nearly  unanimous — of  the  large  com- 
mittee. And  his  whole  attitude  indicated  that  he 
expected  no  opposition.  He  is  not  argumentative;  he 
is  merely  explaining  to  the  convention  why  this  method 
has  been  adopted  to  achieve  the  ends  which  they  desire. 
He  is  not  trying  to  convince  them  of  the  justice  and 
desirability  of  the  end  to  be  gained — that  is  unnecessary 
— he  is  simply  explaining  the  means  which  the  com- 
mittee believes  are  best.  That  illustrates  the  striking 
feature  of  the  present  situation  in  the  South.  As  to  the 
end  to  be  gained  there  is  no  question  in  the  minds  of 


Disfranchising  the  Negro  219 

southern  statesmen.     The  only  debatable  point  is  how 
to  achieve  the  end. 

The    constitution    finally    adopted    did    not    differ  j 
greatly  from  that  of  Alabama.     A  poll-tax  provision  I 
was  made  with  an  alternative  of  war  service  or  being  the  ! 
descendant  of  a  war  veteran.     Previous  to  1904  citizens 
could  vote  and  register  permanently  if  they  could  read 
the  constitution  or  give  a  reasonable  interpretation  of  it 
when  read  to  them.     Veterans  and  sons  of  veteraris\     '^" 
were  relieved  of  this  just  as  they  were  of  the  poll  tax.    ^ 

After  1904  it  became  necessary  to  be  able  to  read 
and  write,  making  out  papers  unassisted.  An  alterna- 
tive was  the  property  test,  not  to  exceed  two  hundred 
and  fifty  dollars.  There  was  also  the  dangerous  pro- 
vision concerning  the  oath. 

It  is  not  difficult  to  appreciate  the  effect  of  these  new^  ^ 
constitutions  in  the  South.  Even  those  few  negroes  whdl 
in  the  past  had  braved  threats  and  vatious  sorts  of  intimi-_^v^ 
dation  were  now  disfranchised  by  the  law.  Great  masses 
of  them,  utterly  uneducated,  found  no  relief  in  the 
property-holding  alternatives.  Disfranchisement  for 
crime  seems  to  be  a  perfectly  legitimate  rule  to  apply  and 
has  been  used  throughout  our  history.  But  when  a 
negro  could  be  disfranchised  because  of  a  trifling  physical 
conflict  with  his  wife — interpreted  as  wife-beating — the 
principle  involved  is  utterly  subverted.  But  the  provi- 
sions leaving  a  large  ilieasure  of  discretion  in  the  hands 
of  election  officials  played  most  havoc  with  the  negroes. 
It  is  absurdly  easy  to  balk  any  man  when  he  is  required 
to  explain  the  meaning  of  a  phrase  to  the  satisfaction  of  a 
prejudiced  judge.  A  negro  seeking  to  be  enfranchised 
under  that  clause  might  be  asked  to  explain  the  theory  of 


220  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

sovereignty  involved  in  some  abstract  expression  in  the 
bill  of  rights,  or  to  tell  what  part  of  the  constitution 
was  derived  from  the  Magna  Charta.  The  significant 
thing  is  that  many  states  of  the  South  are  now  potentially 
fitted  to  exclude  practically  all  the  negroes  from  the 
polls. 

The  grandfather  clause  has  excited  too  much  interest 
in  proportion  to  its  importance.  Perhaps  this  has  been 
because  of  the  suggestive  title.  However,  in  order  to 
acquire  suffrage  under  its  terms  the  white  man  usually 
must  confess  both  penury  and  illiteracy,  and  not  many 
choose  to  do  that.  The  grandfather  clause  also  is 
only  intended  to  operate  for  a  short  time  in  any  case. 
It  was  merely  an  expedient  to  save  white  men  from  the 
severe  requirements  designed  to  catch  all  the  negroes. 
How  effective  these  laws  were  in  keeping  the  negro  from 
the  polls  it  is  not  the  purpose  of  this  work  to  show.^  The 
important  thing  is  that  the  South  is  preparing  itself  to 
exclude  the  negro  wholesale  if  it  chooses  so  to  do.  It  is 
significant  that  public  opinion  in  the  South  has  crystal- 
lized, through  a  generation  of  protests,  into  a  calm, 
deliberate,  sincere  determination  to  do  thoroughly  what 
is  honestly  believed  to  be  just  and  necessary.  And  it  is 
equally  significant  that  the  negro,  who  has  passed 
through  more  than  a  generation  of  freedom,  is  a  passive, 
careless    witness    of    his    own    political    funeral.     The 

^  Statistics  concerning  the  proportions  of  whites  and  negroes  of 
voting  age  in  the  South,  of  the  percentage  of  illiteracy,  and  of  the  number 
registered  as  voters  may  be  found  in  numerous  places.  The  most 
reliable  sources  probably  are  Bulletin  8,  1900  Census,  p.  102;  Inter- 
national Yearbook  (1902),  p.  19.  Less  trustworthy  sources  are  current 
magazine  statements,  e.g.,  American  Negro  Academy,  No.  11;  "Penning 
of  the  Negro,"  Outlook,  LXXI,  163. 


Disfranchising  the  Negro  221 

situation  speaks  volumes.  The  federal  lawmaker  stands 
helpless.  The  negro  must  have  failed  to  make  himself 
an  intelligently  dominant  political  factor  in  the  South,  or 
such  constitutions  as  have  been  reviewed  here  would  be 
utterly  impossible.  There  is  no  intent  here  to  justify 
these  constitutions  or  to  argue  in  favor  of  excluding 
negroes  from  the  polls,  but  it  is  fair  enough  to  present  the 
palpable  futility  of  fryir^^^^JnJ^\}rr^^^^^ff-  soriri,lj:oi)^l'2lll" 
ness  and  create  capacitv  through  mere  alterations  in 
ppKtical  machinery.  The  passive  attitude  of  the  negro 
himself  and  the  Helpless  indignation  of  his  white  cham- 
pions are  evidence  of  the  fact.  The  thought  suggests  ) 
itself  that  federal  legislation  or  federal  action  in  the  /  ^ 
interests  of  the  negro  is  almost  hopeless,  and  when  he 
develops  such  capacity  federal  action  will  be  quite} 
unnecessary. 

That  the  North  has  consciously  or  unconsciously! 
acquiesced  in  this  view  of  the  situation  will  hardly  be! 
denied.  A  great  many  articles  appeared  condemning 
the  action  in  the  Souths  but  the  indignation  expressed 
seems  almost  forced.  The  writers  invoke  ancient 
theories  of  right  and  principles  of  democracy  that  no  one 
can  deny  in  the  abstract.  But  the  public  seems  hardly 
to  be  interested,  certainly  not  in  the  least  aroused.  It 
has  been  in  good  taste  for  speakers  and  lecturers  on 
political  matters  to  heave  an  academic  sigh  when  speak- 
ing of  the  negro  in  the  South  and  immediately  to  pass 
on  to  more  interesting  matters.  The  successive  plat- 
forms of  the  political  party  dominated  by  the  North 
serve  as  an  excellent  barometer.^  In  1864  slavery  was 
denounced  in  uncompromising  terms.     In   1868   *Hhe 

^  T.  H.  McKee,  Party  Conventions. 


222  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

guaranty  by  Congress  of  equal  suffrage  to  all  loyal  men 
of  the  South  was  demanded  by  every  consideration  of 
public  safety,  of  gratitude,  and  of  justice,  and  must  be 
maintained. ' '  In  1 8 7 2  impartial  suffrage  was  demanded. 
In  1880  the  Greenback  party  denounced  efforts  to  restrict 
the  suffrage.  In  1888  the  Republicans  pompously 
demanded  purity  in  elections.  In  the  same  year  the 
Prohibitionists  gave  vent  to  pious  wishes  and  archaic 
theories  about  suffrage.  In  such  harmless  terms  the 
parties  expressed  themselves  until  1904,  when  suddenly 
the  Republicans  deserted  the  negro,  his  abstract  fights, 
fundamental  principles  of  democracy,  etc.,  and  simply 
demanded  the  reduction  of  southern  representation  as 
mentioned  in  the  Fourteenth  Amendment.  Complete 
silence  on  the  subject  would  have  been  a  less  ridiculous 
denouement. 

But  the  statement  in  the  Republican  platform  may  be 
taken  as  a  fair  indication  of  popular  sentiment.  Public 
attention  has  ceased  to  focus  upon  the  negro  cause;  it 
is  looked  upon  as  lost,  or  not  worth  saving,  and  attention 
now  is  devoted  to  the  possibility  of  reducing  the  repre- 
sentation of  southern  states.  It  is  most  discouraging 
for  the  advocates  of  negro  suffrage  to  contemplate  this 
tendency  utterly  to  disregard  the  negro's  rights  and  to 
show  real  eagerness  to  make  political  capital  out  of  his 
downfall.  But  the  attitude  of  the  Supreme  Court  on 
these  recent  constitutions  ought  to  be  considered. 

Just  a  few  significant  cases  will  be  presented.  In 
1892  a  case  arose  concerning  the  validity  of  the  Missis- 
sippi constitution  of  1890.'  It  was  maintained  that  the 
new  constitution  violated  the  enabling  act  which  per- 

^  Sproule  V.  Fredericks,  11  South.  472. 


Disfranchising  the  Negro  223 

mitted  Mississippi  to  rejoin  the  Union.  That  act,-4t 
wilt  be  remembered,  forbade  the  state  to  exclude  negroes 
from  the  franchise;  but,  as  might  have  been  expected, 
the  court  held  that  such  a  law  of  Congress  was  of  no 
effect  after  the  state  had  assumed  full  status.  Further, 
the  court  declared  that  the  Mississippi  constitution  did 
not  discriminate  on  account  of  race  or  color  and  hence 
did  not  violate  the  war  amendments.  Thus  the  first  . 
of  the  modern  reactionary  constitutions  passed  the  acid 
test  with  flying  colors. 

In  1898  the  literacy  test  in  this  same  constitution 
came  up  for  review,  and  the  court  was  obliged  to  reiterate 
its  former  position.^  The  court  held  that  this  clause  did 
not  on  its  face  discriminate  against  the  negro  and  did  not 
violate  the  Fourteenth  Amendment.  The  court  recog- 
nized the  possibility  of  gross  discrimination  and  injustice 
on  the  part  of  registrars,  but  the  terms  of  the  law  reached 
all  men,  and  the  court  could  not  condemn  it  simply-^ 
because  abuse  was  possible.  Hence  the  literacy  test 
and  the  clause  permitting  discrimination  have  been 
firmly  estabhshed  and  are  backed  up  by  the  Supreme 
Court. 

That  clause  in  the  Alabama  constitution  providing 
even  a  broader  scope  for  discrimination  came  up  for 
review  in  1903.^  It  will  be  recalled  that  this  constitution 
permits  the  registrar  to  decide  whether  a  citizen  under- 
stands the  duties  and  obligations  of  citizenship.  A  negro 
sought  to  force  the  registrars  to  enrol  him,  alleging  that 
the  clause  in  question  was  unconstitutional,  that  the 
state  had  violated  the  war  amendment  by  making  such 

^  Williams  v.  Mississippi,  170  U.S.  213. 
'  Giles  V.  Harris,  189  U.S.  474. 


224  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

a  constitutional  provision.  The  court  pointed  out  the 
inconsistency  of  his  asking  to  be  registered  under  the 
terms  of  a  void  act,  and  went  no  farther. 
''^  But  a  startling  thing  occurred  in  19 14  when  the  court 
overturned  a  grandfather  clause  in  the  constitution  of 
Oklahoma.^  It  does  not  have  very  great  practical  inter- 
est, for  in  most  states  where  the  grandfather  clause  had 
been  used  it  was  merely  temporary  and  had  run  its 
course,  and  with  the  rapid  disappearance  of  illiteracy  it 
N/  [  will  hardly  be  resorted  to  again.  But  the  sudden  change 
vi  jn  attitude  on  the  part  of  the  court  is  interesting.  On 
August  2,  19 10,  Oklahoma  passed  by  forty  thousand 
majority  an  amendment  to  the  constitution  containing 
a  grandfather  clause.  However,  there  was  some  trickery 
in  the  case.^  The  words  ^'For  the  Amendment"  were 
printed  at  the  bottom  of  the  ticket,  and  unless  they  were 
marked  out  the  ballot  was  counted  affirmatively.  The 
court  said  that  the  clause,  in  effect,  revived  a  standard 
of  suffrage  existing  before  1866,  which  the  Fifteenth 
Amendment  was  designed  to  abolish.  It  creates  "a 
standard  of  voting  which  on  its  face  is  in  substance  but 
a  revitalization  of  conditions  which  when  they  prevailed 
in  the  past  had  been  destroyed  by  the  self-operative  force 
of  the  amendment."  It  makes  the  condition  of  that 
earlier  period  the  controlling  and  dominant  test  of 
suffrage — it  could  have  no  other  purpose.  Hence  it  is 
invalid.  On  the  other  hand  a  literacy  test  was  upheld. 
But  of  course  this  was  not  a  very  serious  blow  to  the 
South. 

But  to  return  to  the  new  phase  of  the  negro  suffrage 
issue — the  demand  for  reduction  of  representation  in 
^  Guinn  v.  United  States,  238  U.S.  347-        ^  Outlook,  XCV,  853. 


Disfranchising  the  Negro  225 

proportion  to  the  number  of  negroes  disfranchised. 
Since  the  movement  for  negro  suffrage  has  been  diverted 
into  this  channel  and  lost,  as  it  were,  it  is  appropriate  to 
consider  the  merits  of  the  problem. 

In  the  first  place  the  question  is  whether  the  Four- 
teenth Amendment  is  intended  to  operate  literally 
whenever  suffrage  is  reduced.  It  has  been  argued  very 
ably  that  such  is  not  the  case,  that  it  cannot  be  that 
anyone  intended  to  reduce  representation  when  suffrage 
was  denied  on  account  of  crime,  illiteracy,  etc.^  Other 
writers  have  developed  the  proposition  that  it  makes  no 
difference  what  was  meant,  for  the  Fifteenth  Amend- 
ment has  superseded  and  made  imperative  that  clause  of 
the  Fourteenth.^  However,  if  the  Fourteenth  Amend- 
ment intended  only  to  reduce  representation  when 
suffrage  was  denied  on  account  of  race,  color,  etc.,  the 
Fifteenth  Amendment,  if  not  abrogating  it,  at  least 
paralyzed  it,  and  the  Fourteenth  could  not  operate,  for 
its  operation  would  imply  the  existence  of  an  unconstitu- 
tional state  of  affairs.  But  if  one  looks  at  the  Fourteenth 
Amendment  and  merely  considers  exactly  what  it  says, 
not  what  it  may  mean,  but  what  it  says  in  plain,  blunt 
English,  there  is  no  argument  left.  It  then  looms  as  a 
very  unwise  measure,  practically  impossible  of  being  put 
into  effect — but  there  nevertheless. 

The  situation  has  aroused  violent  protest  in  the 
North.  Magazine  writers  have  written  about  it,  speak- 
ers have  discussed  it  in  public,  and  civic  clubs  have 
passed  resolutions  about  it.  In  fact,  the  cause  of  negro 
suffrage  has  been  swallowed  up  in  the  argument  over 
the  practical  political   effect  of  his  disfranchisement. 

^  North  Am.  Rev.,  CLXXX,  115.         » South  Atlantic  Quar.,  Vol.  V. 


2  26  Suffrage  in  the  United  States      ^ 

The  South  is  grossly  overrepresented.  The  number  of 
voters  in  the  South  electing  representatives  to  Congress 
is  very  much  smaller  than  the  number  of  voters  in  the 
North  electing  an  equal  number  of  representatives.  The 
"Southerner,  however,  says  that  congressmen  do  not 
represent  voters  alone,  as  the  northerner's  argument 
implies,  but  all  the  people — and  hence  all  should  be 
counted  whether  they  vote  or  not.  It  is  none  of  the 
northerner's  business  how  the  southern  districts  select 
their  representatives. 

^  The  framers  of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  probably 
never  foresaw  the  overwhelming  difficulties  in  the  way  of 
enforcing  it.  These  problems  can  only  be  hinted  at  and 
references  made  to  fuller  treatments  of  the  case.'  It  is 
almost  impossible  to  discover  how  many  men  are  really 
disfranchised.  Many  do  not  vote  because  of  choice. 
And  when  it  is  attempted  to  enumerate  those  dis- 
franchised for  some  specific  cause  the  problem  is  inten- 
sified. A  literal  application  of  the  amendment  would 
radically  alter  our  political  concept  of  representation, 
involving  representation  based  on  voting  population 
and  not  on  the  actual  population. 

^  Professor  A.  B.  Hart,  in  Pol.  Sci.  Quar.,  VII,  313,  has  an  article 
made  up  of  free-and-easy  statistics  showing  in  round  numbers  the 
probable  number  of  men  disfranchised  for  one  cause  or  another.  A  very- 
thorough  discussion  is  found  in  the  South  Atlantic  Quar.,  Vol.  V,  in  which 
Professor  Frailie  calls  attention  to  such  interesting  considerations  as 
these:  Where  a  tax  requirement  is  laid  only  those  literally  unable  to  pay 
are  really  disfranchised — not  all  those  who  simply  do  not.  When  a 
literacy  test  obtains  it  is  impossible  to  discover  who  are  illiterate,  and 
thereby  disfranchised,  for  an  alternative  may  exist  of  passing  an 
"understanding"  clause,  and  how  can  one  find  out  who  are  unable  to 
understand  the  constitution  ?  Also  many  illiterates  fail  to  attempt  the 
understanding  clause,  who  might  pass  if  they  tried.  Merriam  in  Forum, 
XXXII,  460,  brings  up  the  question  of  Chinese  being  excluded. 


Disfranchising  the  Negro  227 

The  bills  introduced  in  Congress  demanding  the 
application  of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  exhibit  an 
utter  lack  of  appreciation  of  the  difficulties  involved, 
and  no  solution  has  yet  been  offered.  It  is  one  of  the 
most  serious  problems  of  the  day  and  threatens  much 
trouble,  especially  if  the  Democratic  party  remains  in 
power.  The  Republicans  would  be  likely  to  become 
more  and  more  restive  under  the  conviction  that  Demo- 
cratic power  is  being  supported  by  unfair  methods.  In 
the  meantime  the  cause  of  negro  suffrage  is  well-nigh 
lost  and  bids  fair  not  to  be  revived  again.  The  attitude 
toward  negro  suffrage  is  excellently  summed  up  in  the 
introduction  to  Professor  Dunning's  articles  on  the 
"Undoing  of  Reconstruction"  in  the  Atlantic  Monthly: 

Our  temporary  coldness  with  regard  to  the  moral  issues 
involved  in  politics,  combined  with  that  world-wide  reaction 
against  democracy  which  has  been  noted  by  many  recent  Atlantic 
writers,  makes  it  unlikely  that  any  considerable  portion  of  the 
northern  public  will  at  present  seriously  bestir  themselves  in  the 
negro's  behalf.^ 

^  Atlantic  Monthly,  LXXXVIII,  435. 


CHAPTER  IX 
WOMAN  SUFFRAGE  SINCE  THE  CIVIL  WAR 

There  is  still  half  a  century  to  deal  with,  half  a 
century  of  fumbling  with  suffrage  Kmitations  in  the 
North.  Chapter  viii  carried  the  suffrage  problems  of 
the  South  down  into  the  twentieth  century,  but  it  yet 
remains  to  trace  the  controversies  in  the  North  down  to 
that  same  point. 

Obviously  negro  suffrage  has  not  been  a  serious 
problem  far  outside  the  soHd  South.  After  the  war 
amendments  were  in  force  and  had  been  interpreted  by 
the  courts,  negro  suffrage  was  seldom  even  discussed 
in  the  northern  states.  Property  and  taxpaying  tests 
were  gone,  and  as  far  as  manhood  suffrage  was  con- 
cerned there  remained  nothing  more  to  discuss  but  the 
status  of  the  alien  and  the  advisability  of  literacy  tests. 
Those  matters  were  of  comparatively  small  importance, 
and  hence  it  was  that  the  woman-suffrage  movement 
rapidly  came  to  the  fore  and  soon  overshadowed  every 
other  suffrage  problem.  A  history  of  suffrage  in  the 
North  since  the  Civil  War  then  is  chiefly  a  history  of  the 
development  of  woman  suffrage.  A  voluminous  and 
thorough  history  of  this  development  has  already  been 
written,^  and  there  is  no  intention  now  to  go  through  it 
with  paste  pot  and  scissors  in  order  to  write  this  chapter. 

^  Stanton,  Anthony,  and  Gage,  History  of  Woman  Sufrage.  Four 
volumes.  This  monumental  work  deals  with  woman  suffrage  in  the 
United  States  since  1854. 

228 


Woman  Suffrage  Since  the  Civil  War         229 

After  disposing  of  some  of  the  minor  issues  it  will  there- 
fore only  be  necessary  to  outline  the  arguments  for  and 
against  woman  suffrage  as  they  have  been  developed 
and  enlarged  upon,  and  finally  to  discuss  the  status  of 
the  movement  in  the  second  decade  of  the  twentieth 
century. 

It  was  pointed  out  how  most  of  the  southern  states 
penalized  Confederate  sympathizers  in  their  suffrage 
laws  immediately  after  the  war.  Naturally  there  were 
some  war-inspired  tests  to  be  found  in  the  North  as  well. 
Between  1865  and  1870  new  constitutions  were  drawn 
up  in  West  Virginia,  Maryland,  Missouri,  Nebraska, 
and  Nevada,  the  last  two  being  new  states.  They  all 
sought  to  penaKze  southern  sympathizers.  While  it 
was  not  thought  necessary  in  other  states  to  alter 
suffrage  laws  to  exclude  such  persons,  the  occasion  of 
writing  a  new  constitution  offered  an  opportunity  to  dis- 
quahfy  them  too  easy  to  be  overlooked.  So  it  happened 
that  in  all  these  states  men  who  had  been  identified  with 
the  Confederacy  wer,e  excluded  from  the  franchise. 
But  the  prejudice  soon  died  out,  and  after  1870  such 
measures  were  no  longer  to  be  found. 

A  more  significant  thing  is  that  in  Missouri  and  in 
the  new  state  of  Nebraska  aHens  were  permitted  to  vote 
after  simply  declaring  their  intention,  in  Missouri  one 
year  after,  and  in  Nebraska  only  thirty  days.  It  is  also 
significant  that  in  all  these  states  the  negro  was  positively 
excluded  until  the  operation  of  the  Fifteenth  Amendment 
made  this  no  longer  possible. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  when  the  ignorant 
foreigner  became  a  problem  in  the  eastern  seaboard 
states  the  lawmakers  sought  refuge  in  Hteracy  tests. 


V- 


230  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

Now  when  an  influx  of  free  negroes  was  anticipated  in 
the  North  men  took  a  new  interest  in  proposed  literacy- 
tests  and  hoped  to  use  them  to  exclude  the  benighted 
Africans.  As  was  pointed  out  before,  literacy  or  educa- 
tional quaUfications  seldom  were  stigmatized  in  the 
popular  mind  to  the  same  extent  as  property  or  tax- 
paying  quaUfications.  In  this  country  there  was  no 
very  good  reason  why  every  man  could  not  learn  to 
read  and  write.  Objections  to  educational  tests  were 
more  or  less  theoretical.  The  question  came  up  in  the 
New  York  convention  of  1867^  and  was  very  thoroughly 
discussed. 

The  arguments  in  favor  of  a  Uteracy  test  were  ob- 
vious enough,  but  there  seemed  to  be  weighty  objections 
to  them.  Of  course  it  was  said  that  any  such  quali- 
fication was  quite  out  of  harmony  with  our  democratic 
institutions.  Literacy  is  no  indication  whatever  of 
character  and  real  worth.  No  one  ever  maintained  that 
it  was.  Was  it  desirable  then  to  exclude  from  the 
suffrage  a  great  many  worthy,  honest,  thrifty,  hard- 
working, able  men,  who  may  indeed  have  fought  in  the 
war,  simply  because  they  could  not  read  and  write  ? 

Some  who  paid  taxes  even  might  be  excluded.  Such 
questions  were  painfully  difficult  of  solution.  Delegates 
tried  to  evade  by  saying  that  there  were  not  many  such. 
That  may  have  been  so,  and  yet  thoroughly  sound  politi- 
cal institutions  ought  to  comprehend  even  theoretical 
possibiHties,  and  such  a  measure  as  this,  it  was  said, 
violated  in  spirit  a  fundamental  principle  of  our  demo- 
cratic philosophy.  That  only  a  few  might  be  injured 
did  not  affect  the  principle.    And,  after  all,  men  seemed 

»  N.Y.  Conv.,  1867,  Proceedings,  p.  491. 


Woman  Suffrage  Since  the  Civil  War  231 

to  believe,  though  they  did  not  express  it  clearly,  that 
the  wishes  of  an  illiterate  man  ought  to  find  just  as  full 
expression  through  democratic  political  machinery  as 
the  wishes  of  an  educated  man.  The  ignorant  man  may 
not  have  known  what  was  good  for  him,  but  he  did  know 
what  he  wanted.  A  benevolent  autocrat  might  give 
a  man  what  was  good  for  him,  but  only  the  man  himself 
could  ask  for  and  secure  through  the  suffrage  just  what 
he  might  want,  be  it  good  or  bad.  Should  the  unedu- 
cated man  not  have  a  right  to  satisfy  his  honest,  legiti- 
mate wants  ?  Viewed  in  the  abstract,  this  problem  lies 
at  the  very  root  of  our  democratic  philosophy. 

The  doctrine  of  expediency  again  was  stalking  in 
under  cover  of  its  usual  disguise.  No  one  had  the 
courage  to  look  it  in  the  face,  it  was  so  blunt,  so  material- 
istic, so  regardless  of  the  sacred  "rights"  of  the  indi- 
vidual. And  yet  the  advocate  of  literacy  tests  was 
really  saying,  "It  is  expedient  that  we  should  ignore 
the  desire  of  the  illiterate  man,"  and  the  conclusion  was: 
He  has  no  rights.  How  harsh  it  sounds,  and  yet  in 
learned  phrases  that  is  what  the  conservatives  have 
always  said.  And  on  the  other  hand  the  radicals  them- 
selves took  refuge  in  the  specter  of  expediency.  If 
their  arguments  were  any  good  at  all  they  proved  too 
much.  Natural,  inherent,  inalienable  rights  were  talked 
of,  government  by  consent  of  the  governed,  direct  popu- 
lar control,  real  democracy,  etc.  These  always  were  the 
weapons  of  the  radicals.  But  the  logician  could  turn 
their  own  arguments  against  them.  To  the  champions 
of  the  illiterate  man  who  protested  in  these  terms 
against  exclusion  could  be  pointed  out,  the  paupers,  the 
aliens,  the  soldier  boys  of  eighteen  and  twenty,  and,  last 


232  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

of  all,  the  women.  And  the  only  retort  could  be:  "Oh, 
yes,  it  is  expedient  to  exclude  them,  but  we  should 
vote.'' 

Observe  that  in  the  last  analysis  they  all  were  merely 
giving  their  various  interpretations  of  expediency  utterly 
regardless  of  the  rights  of  individuals  as  such.  And  in 
the  year  of  our  Lord  19 18,  in  the  United  States  Senate, 
where  discussion  waxes  hot  on  the  Anthony  Amendment, 
the  same  century-old  self-deception  and  timidity  are 
exhibited.  The  conservatives  lack  courage  to  say 
boldly:  "You  have  no  rights."  The  radicals  are  afraid 
to  retort,  "Nor  have  you."  And  yet  both  sides  are  in 
reality  exploiting  their  interpretations  of  expediency. 
The  one  puts  his  interpretation  in  a  sugar  coat  and  talks 
sentimentally  about  woman's  place  being  in  the  home. 
The  other  disguises  his  in  declamation  about  funda- 
mental rights  and  democracy. 

But  to  get  back  to  the  New  York  convention  of  1867, 
the  literacy  test  was  defeated  thirty-eight  to  sixty- 
three.^  In  connection  with  the  discussion  there  was 
much  talk  about  the  right  of  paupers  and  even  criminals 
to  vote.  Inmates  of  institutions,  it  seems,  voted 
generally  and  lent  themselves  readily  to  corruption,  but 
nothing  new  was  done  about  it.^  The  question  has, 
moreover,  very  little  interest  and  really  does  not  have 
to  be  solved  in  a  constitution. 

*  N.Y.  Conv.,  1867,  Proceedings,  p.  491. 

^  Ibid.,  p.  559.  Mr.  Macdonald  hoped  that  something  would  be 
done  about  lunatics:  "In  my  own  town  they  have  a  lunatic  there  whom 
one  party  makes  vote  one  year,  and  the  other  party  the  next  year,  for 
there  is  no  possibility  of  ruling  him  out  ....  and  I  live  in  a  town 
where  the  election  is  pretty  close.  If  it  should  be  turned  by  one  vote 
then  the  lunatic  would  elect  the  whole  ticket.    I  do  not  beUeve  in  that." 


Woman  Suffrage  Since  the  Civil  War         233 

The  New  York  convention  of  1867  is  particularly)  /  / 
noteworthy  because  it  was  the  scene  of  the  first  serious 
effort  to  secure  woman  suffrage — serious  because  it  wa§ 
the  first  occasion  on  which  the  proposition  had  occupied 
the  attention  of  a  constituent  assembly  for  any  consider- 
able length  of  time  and  had  required  the  deliberative 
thought  of  able  statesmen  on  both  sides.  The  woman's 
move,  it  will  be  remembered,  had  scarcely  been  thought 
of  until  1854.  Then  the  Civil  War  diverted  attention 
from  it  before  it  was  much  more  than  well  organized. 
But  now  the  war  was  scarcely  over  when  the  woman- 
suffrage  advocates  centered  all  their  forces  upon  New 
York.  A  state  constitutional  convention  was  of  course 
the  most  appropriate  place  to  strike.  Suffrage  is  a 
matter  left  entirely  to  state  control.  Suffrage  quali- 
fications are  always  fixed  in  a  constitution;  hence  efforts 
expended  upon  Congress,  state  legislatures,  and  other 
assemblies  could  scarcely  be  looked  upon  as  rnore  than 
propaganda.  The  one  place  to  look  for  practical  results 
and  effective  gain  for  the  cause  was  in  the  state  conven- 
tions. They  struck  with  telling  force,  and  since  that 
year  poHticians  have  not  been  able  to  treat  the  cause 
in  a  jesting  manner. 

Although  the  controversy  over  suffrage  was  now  on 
a  new  level  and  the  barrier  to  be  overcome  was  sex 
rather  than  wealth,  race,  or  literacy,  the  same  familiar 
arguments  were  easily  adjusted  to  the  new  situation. 
With  clever  innuendoes  the  women  protested  against 
being  classed  with  idiots,  children,  criminals,  and 
paupers.  This  appeal  had  not  been  used  to  any  extent 
by  men  who  sought  the  franchise  in  earlier  years,  but 
the  women  used  it  constantly  along  with  many  theatrical 


234  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

trappings  and  sentimental  pleadings.  There  was  here 
an  opportunity  to  appeal  to  the  emotions  that  had  never 
existed  before,  and  the  women  were  not  averse  to  exploit- 
ing it.  And  it  must  be  said  that  they  were  met  with 
similar  empty  emotional  appeals  from  their  opponents. 

Those  who  tried  to  remain  on  a  rational  plane 
threshed  over  the  threadbare  philosophy  of  Revolu- 
tionary days.  The  Declaration  of  Independence  was 
called  naught  but  mocking  irony  unless  women  had  the 
ballot.  The  government  was  not  deriving  its  powers 
from  the  consent  of  the  governed.  There  was  taxation 
without  representation.  Civil  rights  were  an  empty 
dream  when  there  was  no  political  power  to  give  them 
substance.  And  finally  women,  so  they  said,  had  a 
natural,  inherent,  inalienable  right  to  share  in  self- 
government. 

Once  more  it  is  to  be  observed  that  as  usual  the 
reformers  were  interpreting  democracy  as  being  summed 
up  in  the  satisfaction  of  their  own  peculiar  desires.  If 
these  arguments  were  taken  seriously  they  would  lead 
to  a  startling  conclusion  when  traced  back  through  the 
pages  of  this  book.  The  women  said  that  there  was  no 
democracy  if  they  did  not  have  the  ballot.  Ten  years 
before  the  free  negroes  said  the  same  about  themselves, 
but  the  women  were  scarcely  thought  of  then.  About 
that  time  the  same  thing  was  said  in  order  to  aid  the 
cause  of  the  thrifty  aliens  who  were  taxed  and  governed 
without  their  consent,  but  the  women  and  negroes  were 
not  considered.  A  few  years  earlier  the  non-taxpaying 
proletariat  said  the  same  thing  about  themselves,  but 
had  no  thought  of  the  women,  the  aliens,  and  the  negroes. 
Farther  back  still,  when  even  the  small  taxpayer  was 


Woman  Suffrage  Since  the  Civil  War         235 

excluded,  he  shouted  the  same  thing  to  the  property 
owners,  who  alone  enjoyed  the  suffrage.  What  an 
unspeakable  despotism  must  have  existed  in  the  days 
of  Washington  and  Jefferson ! 

This  history,  if  it  does  nothing  else,  ought  to  show 
that  democracy  is  not  to  be  measured  by  so  narrow  a 
gauge  as  the  suffrage  franchise.  The  United  States 
was  a  democratic  nation  in  1789  just  as  it  is  in  19 18. 
Whether  only  property  owners  should  vote,  or  whether 
women  should  vote,  is  a  mere  question  of  expediency. 
What  suffrage,  under  the  circumstances,  will  make  for 
the  greatest  social  good  ? 

Of  course  there  were  some  in  this  convention  who 
rested  their  demands  upon  the  argument  that  woman 
suffrage  would  make  for  social  betterment  and  left  aside 
the  arguments  concerning  rights,  taxation,  and  repre- , 
sentation.  But  these  people  made  boasts  By  wEcn 
they  would  not  have  cared  to  stand  later.  Woman 
suffrage,  it  was  said,  would  rid  the  cities  of  vice  and 
prostitution,  prohibition  soon  would  follow,  crime  would 
be  reduced  to  a  minimum,  and  all  manner  of  reform 
would  come.  They  would  transform  their  pious  wishes 
into  law.  Reformers  of  this  type  have  usually  been 
badly  disappointed.  In  the  first  place,  the  legislation 
hoped  for  is  very  slow  in  coming  if  it  comes  at  all,  and, 
in  the  second  place,  if  it  does  come  it  is  found  that  the 
end  in  view  cannot  be  attained  by  means  of  legislation. 

The  theory  of  representation  has  always  been 
troublesome  and  was  easily  brought  into  the  contro- 
versy. Women,  it  was  said,  were  a  distinct  group  in 
society  and  as  such  deserved  representation.  Such  an 
argument  as  that  of  course  threatened  to  put  a  new 


236  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

interpretation  upon  the  theory  of  representation  obtain- 
ing in  the  United  States.  The  people  of  the  United 
States  have  always  considered  themselves  as  one  homo- 
geneous mass.  Thus  there  is  no  capitalist  group,  no 
proletarian  group,  no  business  men's  group,  no  clerical 
group,  no  bourgeoisie — seeking  recognition  as  a  distinct 
group.  The  political  parties  in  this  country  have  always 
appealed  to  all  people,  of  whatever  social  status,  pro- 
claiming their  policy  as  suited  to  promote  the  best 
interests  of  all  people — ^not  the  well-being  of  a  particu- 
lar group,  such  as  a  labor  group.  One  of  the  admirable 
and  unique  things  about  the  party  system  in  the 
United  States  has  been  that  the  leading  parties  do  not 
pretend  to  be  so  identified  with  any  particular  social 
group  but  have  always  offered  their  policies  as  being 
best  for  all.  Thus  there  have  been  no  well-defined 
groups  demanding  recognition  as  such. 

The  women  threatened  to  do  this  thing,  and  many  of 
their  speakers  declared  that  they  needed  representation 
as  women.  Leaders  in  later  years  recognized  the 
I  unwisdom  of  such  an  attitude  and  did  not  differentiate 
'  between  the  interests  of  women  and  of  other  citizens  of 
the  country.  The  real  problem  of  suffrage  merely  was : 
Who  should  choose  those  who  are  to  represent  all  the 
people?  Woman  suffragists  all  believe  that  women 
should  share  in  this  choice,  but  only  the  later  leaders 
have  avoided  the  unfortunate  attitude  that  women 
should  share  because  women,  as  women,  deserve  repre- 
sentation. 

\  There  has  been  more  irrelevant  bombast  in  the 
woman-suffrage  debate  than  in  any  other  previous 
debates  on  suffrage  questions.     The  opponents  in  the 


Woman  Suffrage  Since  the  Civil  War         237 

past  were  for  the  most  part  not  well  prepared,  and  for 
that  matter  seldom  have  been  well  organized  or  pre- 
pared since.  Indeed  there  was  surprisingly  little  intel- 
ligent opposition.  Men  continued  to  say  vaguely  that 
woman's  place  was  in  the  home,  and  there  was  no  end 
of  sentimental,  almost  maudlin,  rambling  about  the 
virtues  of  women,  which  were  all  to  be  destroyed  pre- 
sumably if  once  they  had  the  suffrage.^  There  were 
plenty  of  sensible  arguments  to  bring  forth,  but  men 
preferred  to  be  sentimental. 

Reverend  gentlemen  proclaimed  the  teaching  of  the 
Scriptures  on  the  subject.  St.  Paul  and  the  biblical  rib 
were  much  in  evidence.  These  men  were  very  dogmatic, 
as  they  had  been  at  the  women's  conventions  before  the 
war.  There  was  no  compromising  with  this  element,^ 
and  they  lent  respectability  to  the  opposition. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  many  were  opposed  to  woman 
suffrage  for  reasons  which  they  could  hardly  explain. 
The  scriptural  passages  so  freely  quoted  without  a  doubt 
had  much  influence,  particularly  upon  men  who  seldom 
reasoned  things  out,  and  upon  others  who  were  blindly 
religious.     But  the  religious  opposition  was  not  a  lasting 

*  N.Y.  Conv.,  1867,  proceedings,  p.  433.  A  typical  opponent  of 
woman  suffrage  speaks:  T.  love  to  look  upon  the  sweet  face  of  a 
virtuous  woman.  I  love  to  see  her  standing  at  her  place  in  the  family 
circle,  with  a  new,  clean,  gingham  dress  on,  baking  warm  biscuits  for 
tea.  I  love  .  .  .  .  "  ac?  nauseam  about  gentle,  tender,  loving  woman; 
sweet,  charming  influence;  bright  star  in  the  sanctuary  of  the  home, 
angel  voices,  etc. 

'Ibid.,  p.  424:  "The  right  of  self-government  upon  which  our 
whole  superstructure  is  based  is  in  the  man.  It  has  been  written  by  the 
finger  of  God  himself  upon  the  mental  constitution  of  every  human  being 
and  in  such  unmistakable  characters  that  it  is  impossible  for  us  to  mis- 
understand, misinterpret,  or  mistranslate  them." 


238  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

opposition.  Be  it  prejudice,  ignorance,  stupidity,  or 
what  you  will,  a  great  many  men  at  this  time,  and 
ever  since,  were  offended  at  the  thought  of  woman 
1  "leaving  her  proper  sphere."  It  was  a  perfectly  honest, 
manly,  guileless  sentiment.  This  feeling  did  not  permit 
of  logical  exposition.  It  could  hardly  be  defended,  or 
even  described  in  words.  If  a  man  did  not  experience 
that  feeling,  springing  up  spontaneously  within  him,  no 
amount  of  talk  could  stimulate  it.  Thus  it  was  that 
mental  pictures  of  women  in  their  domestic  occupations, 
glorification  of  womanly  virtues  and  distinctly  womanly 
functions,  and  dire  threats  of  what  might  happen  if  she 
took  part  in  politics  stirred  an  unreasoning  senti- 
mentalism  that  could  withstand  much  harder  blows 
than  rational  arguments  ever  could.  It  is  this  senti- 
ment, prejudice  if  you  wish  to  call  it  so,  that  has  been 
the  most  effectual  block  to  woman  suffrage.  It  has 
not  been  crooked  politics,  the  liquor  interests,  the  cor- 
rupt element,  nor  yet  ignorance  and  undemocratic 
selfishness  that  has  kept  women  from  the  ballot.  Logi- 
cal argument  has  had  surprisingly  little  to  do  with  it 
on  either  side.  It  has  been  this  unreasoning,  deep- 
seated  feeling,  a  sense  of  revulsion  at  the  thought  of 
woman  in  politics,  out  of  her  "natural  sphere,"  that  has 
held  the  women  back.  And  until  this  perfectly  honest 
sentiment  is  broken  down  there  can  be  no  hope  for 
woman's  enfranchisement.  The  women  do  not  have 
to  fight  the  corrupt  politician;  they  do  not  have  to  fight 
the  vicious  interests  and  never  did.  It  has  always  been 
the  honest,  wholesome,  straightforward,  upright  high- 
mindedness  of  good  men  that  they  have  had  to  fight.  As 
said  before,  this  opposition  has  seldom  been  clearly 


Woman  Suffrage  Since  the  Civil  War  239 

expressed,  and  because  of  its  very  nature  hardly  can  be; 
yet  in  its  very  honesty  of  motive  lies  its  strength.  \ 

There  is  one  argument,  however,  that  has  slowly 
broken  through  this  opposition.  It  was  eloquently 
presented  in  this  convention,'  and  in  the  twentieth 
century  it  is  the  keynote  of  the  woman's  claim.  It  is 
that  no  one  can  possiblysaywhat  is  woman's  natural 
sphere  until  she  has  the  same  liberty  as  man  has  to 
HeveTop  "and  seek  her  sphere  by  natural  processes. 
Restrictive  legislation  intrudes  as  an  artificial  force,  and 
woman  never  can  attain  her  natural  sphere  until  such 
artificialities^re  removed . 

The  woman-suffrage  program  was  defeated,  of  course, 
but  could  boast  of  a  respectable  minority.  The  vote 
was  twenty-four  to  sixty- three. ^  The  compromisers 
were  present  as  usual  and  wanted  a  popular  referendum. 
Others  wanted  to  permit  woman  taxpayers  to  vote,  and 
some  thought  that  women  could  safely  vote  on  school 
matters.  Compromises  always  attract  a  goodly  follow- 
ing, and  these  plans  were  utilized  in  later  years.  How- 
ever, as  one  man  said,  his  only  objection  to  women 
voting  was  that  they  were  women;  no  compromises 
could  tempt  such  men  as  he. 

In  the  same  year,  1867,  a  constitutional  convention 
was  held  in  the  state  of  Michigan,  and  here  too  the 
suffrage  issue  arose.  It  was  obvious  early  in  the  con- 
vention that  the  women  had  no  chance  to  secure  a 
favorable  vote,  and  instead  of  debating  the  issue  to  any 
great  extent  the  advocates  directed  all  their  energies 
toward  securing  a  referendum  on  the  question.     It  is 

'  N.Y.  Conv.,  1867,  Proceedings,  p.  469.    Presented  by  Mr.  Curtis. 

^  Ihid.,  p.  470. 


240  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

surprising  how  close  they  came  to  winning  this.  A 
proposal  was  made  that  a  constitution  permitting 
women  to  vote  should  be  submitted  to  the  electorate, 
and  the  voters  were  to  have  an  opportunity  to  vote 
separately  on  the  suffrage  article.  If  a  majority  of  those 
voting  on  the  question  favored  it,  it  was  to  remain  a 
part  of  the  constitution.  Such  a  method  of  presenta- 
tion would  have  given  the  suffragists  a  tremendous 
lever.  The  proposition  was  defeated  in  convention  by 
an  exceedingly  small  margin,  the  vote  being  thirty-one 
to  thirty-four.^ 

The  incident  is  peculiarly  significant  in  that  it  indi- 
cates a  tendency  to  side-step.  Politicians  were  already 
afraid  of  woman  suffrage  and  felt  safer  if  they  could 
pass  the  issue  along  to  the  electorate  without  committing 
themselves.  It  is  a  striking  thing  too  that  suffrage  has 
never  been  a  party  issue.  The  leading  poHtical  parties 
at  no  time  ever  definitely  committed  themselves,  merely 
trying  to  say  nice  things  to  the  ladies  without  promising 
anything.  Men  have  paid  no  attention  to  party  lines 
when  the  suffrage  question  has  come  up,  and  since  the 
Civil  War  Democrats  and  Republicans  have  joined 
hands  on  either  side  of  the  fence. 

It  may  be  said  in  passing  that  a  very  mild  and  in- 
definite literacy  test  failed  in  this  convention.^  It  had 
been  proposed  that  voters  ^' shall  possess  sufficient  knowl- 
edge of  the  English  language  to  converse  therein,"  but 
the  proposal  was  quickly  disposed  of.  The  states  in  the 
Great  Lakes  region  were  not  ready  to  antagonize  their 
foreign-born  population,  and,  although  alien  suffrage 

^  Mich.  Conv.,  1867,  Journal,  p.  704. 
'  Ibid.,  p.  699. 


Woman  Suffrage  Since  the  Civil  War  241 

was  not  tolerated  everywhere  in  this  section,  nothing 
was  done  that  might  drive  immigrants  away. 

Two  years  later,  1869,  the  suffrage  problems  were 
vexing  a  convention  in  the  state  of  Illinois.  The  full 
significance  of  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  had  not  yet 
dawned  upon  this  convention,  and  the  delegates  were 
inclined  to  argue  long  and  bitterly  on  the  merits  of 
negro  suffrage.  It  was  decided  to  admit  the  negroes  to 
the  ballot,^  and  this  step  aroused  the  advocates  of  woman 
suffrage  to  furious  indignation.  With  biting  sarcasm 
and  bitter  contempt  they  upbraided  the  convention  for 
taking  in  the  debased,  vicious,  black  man  and  repudiating 
their  own  women.  A  large  number  of  delegates  were 
vigorously  working  for  alien  suffrage,  and  toward  them 
was  directed  a  double  charge  of  obloquy.  Here  were 
men  throwing  open  public  offices  and  franchise  privileges 
to  half-civilized  Africans  and  ignorant,  stupid  foreigners 
and  yet  closing  the  door  upon  their  own  wives  and  daugh- 
ters. However  trifling  and  superficial  such  a  line  of 
argument  may  be  considered,  it  has  always  succeeded  in 
making  honest,  fair-minded  men  feel  decidedly  uncom- 
fortable. They  do  not  think  that  the  argument  is 
sound  and  yet  they  are  not  ready  to  meet  it  in  debate. 
Their  attitude  is  a  result  of  that  feeling,  that  sentiment 
of  revulsion,  which  comes  spontaneously  and  absolutely 
inhibits  any  rational  discussion  with  the  man  who  does 
not  share  it.  If  a  man  did  not  experience  a  feeling  of 
revulsion  at  the  thought  of  his  wife  getting  into  politics 
just  as  he  would  at  seeing  her  smoke  a  cigar  and  drink 
beer  in  a  saloon,  it  was  utterly  impossible  to  argue  with 
that  man  on  common  ground.     This  emotion,  which 

'  111.  Conv.,  1869,  Debates,  p.  603. 


242  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

could  neither  be  defended  in  words  nor  overcome  by 
argument,  is  the  one  great  barrier  woman  suffragists 
have  had  to  assail.  In  many  ways  it  was  somewhat 
akin  to  the  emotional  antipathy  to  slavery,  though  of 
course  not  so  strong.  Rational  arguments  fell  off  the 
abolitionist  like  water  off  a  duck's  back,  and  he  made  no 
attempt  to  defend  his  own  position  in  rational  argument; 
but  he  was  ready  to  die  for  it,  and  that  was  the  signifi- 
cant thing.  He  simply  hated  slavery  with  all  his  heart 
and  soul  and  with  an  honest  conviction  that  approached 
fanaticism.  If  the  other  fellow  did  not  share  it,  talk 
was  useless — go  get  a  gun! 

It  is  something  of  this  spirit  that  women  have  been 
facing  during  the  last  half-century.  Opponents  were 
exhibiting  their  honest  interpretation  of  American 
chivalry,  which  involved  a  strange  complex  of  emotions. 
A  peculiar  generosity  was  there,  a  jealous  desire  to  do 
things  for  their  women,  a  wish  to  protect  them  from 
debasing  influences;  and  mixed  in  too,  of  course, 
was  a  bit  of  prejudice  and  selfishness.  But  withal,  the 
opposition  was  essentially  honest  and  well  meant;  if  it 
had  not  been  it  would  have  crumpled  to  the  ground 
years  ago. 

The  attempt  has  been  made  here  to  give  an  idea  of 
the  atmosphere  that  was  created  whenever  the  woman- 
suffrage  issue  came  up  for  debate.  It  is  unnecessary  to 
go  through  many  more  conventions,  for  the  story  was 
always  the  same,  and  the  same  atmosphere  has  always 
been  created,  even  into  the  present  century.  There 
has  always  been  in  the  foreground  the  shouting  radical, 
unschooled  and  unwilling  to  learn,  more  eager  to  talk 
than  to  study,  saying  ridiculous  things  about  natural 


Woman  Suffrage  Since  the  Civil  War         243 

rights  and  democracy,  and  he  has  been  well  backed  by  a 
peaceful,  benevolent  element.  There  has  been  the 
high-minded  philosopher  actuated  by  a  noble  desire  to 
broaden  the  sphere  of  woman's  activity  in  order  that 
all  mankind  may  benefit.  There  have  been  at  least 
two  sections  of  the  opposition,  one  mute,  the  other 
maudlin;  and  there  sometimes  could  be  found  a  few,  a 
very,  very  few,  who  claimed  some  knowledge  of  political 
science  and  history  and  sincerely  believed  that  granting 
woman  suffrage  would  be  an  unwise  step.  And  per- 
vading the  whole  there  has  been  the  spirit  of  compromise, 
finding  expression  in  proposals  for  referendum,  proposals 
to  let  women  taxpayers  vote  on  certain  issues  and  to  let 
the  women  vote  on  school  matters. 

These  compromises,  particularly  the  latter,  made 
considerable  headway,  especially  in  the  West,  while  the 
East  was  very  conservative.^     Colorado  came  into  the  I 
Union  in  1876  with  a  constitution  permitting  women  to  1  ^ 
vote  in  school  elections  and  containing  a  clause  permit-  1 
ting  the  legislature  to  submit  the  question  of  full  woman  J 
suffrage  to  a  referendum."*     This  convention  wanted  to 
pass  the  burden  to  the  legislature.     Colorado  also  per- 
mitted aliens  to  vote  and  authorized  the  assembly  to 
apply  a  literacy  test  after  1890.     No  more  states  came 
in  imtil  1889,  and  in  that  year  there  were  four,  two  others 
following  in  1890  and  a  seventh  in  1896.^    It  will  be 

'  A  Vermont  convention  in  1870  {Journal,  p.  57)  turned  down  woman 
suffrage  by  a  vote  of  two  hundred  and  thirty-three  to  one. 

^  Referendum  had  been  tried  in  Michigan  two  years  previously,  and 
woman  suffrage  was  defeated  135,000  to  40,000.  Thorpe,  Constitutions , 
p.  1976. 

3  Montana,  North  Dakota,  South  Dakota,  Washington,  Idaho, 
Wyoming,  and  Utah, 


244  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

well  to  examine  this  group  of  new  constitutions  for  new 
suffrage  provisions. 

Montana  permitted  women  to  vote  in  school  elections 
and  women  taxpayers  to  vote  on  all  matters  referred  to  a 
vote  of  taxpayers.  These  compromises  are  hardly  worth 
discussion;  they  merely  exhibit  a  tendency  to  trifle  with 
the  real  issue.  Of  course  there  is  no  reason  why  women 
should  vote  on  school  matters  any  more  than  on  other 
matters.  But  strangely  enough  school  affairs  have  been 
considered  part  of  "woman's  sphere."  Education  has 
always  been  considered  an  effeminate  piece  of  business 
in  this  country,  and  the  entire  school  system  has  been 
dominated  by  feminine  influence  outside  and  in.  Now 
the  newer  states  saw  fit  to  turn  school  problems  over  to 
woman  suffrage  as  being  appropriate  questions  for  women 
to  handle.  As  to  the  special  grant  of  suffrage  to  woman 
taxpayers,  that  grew  out  of  the  false  economy  discussed 
earlier  in  this  work. 

North  Dakota  permitted  women  to  vote  on  school 
matters,  and  the  legislature  was  authorized  to  provide 
a  literacy  test.  South  Dakota  also  granted  woman 
suffrage  in  school  elections  and  furthermore  admitted 
l.aHens  to  the  ballot.  Washington  followed  suit  as  far 
as  schools  were  concerned  and  required  that  after  1896 

rail  voters  should  be  able  to  read  and  speak  English. 
Idaho  granted  school  suffrage  to  women  and  in  1896  fuU 
L_suffrage.    Wyoming  came  in  with  a  constitution  grant- 
V  j  ing  full,  unqualified  suffrage  to  women,  and  voters  were 
\  required  to  be  able  to  read  the  constitution.     Utah  in 
^  f    1895   provided  full   woman   suffrage   in   very   explicit 
terms  and  excluded  aliens  in  equally  explicit  terms,' 
^  Thorpe,  op.  cit. 


Woman  Suffrage  Since  the  Civil  War         245 

It  might  be  interesting  to  some  persons  to  trace  the 
process  by  which  the  opposition  to  woman  suffrage  was 
overcome  in  order  to  make  these  new  constitutions 
possible,  but  few  new  arguments  would  be  found.  It 
simply  happened  that  the  indescribable,  inbred  aversion 
slowly  dissolved.  Why  it  disappeared  is  just  as  hard  to 
explain  as  how  it  originated.  Men  simply  ceased  to  feel 
that  aversion  any  longer. 

During  the  immediate  period  under  discussion  certain 
states  amended  their  old  constitutions  with  new  suffrage 
provisions.     Maine  in  1893  provided  that  voters  must 
be  able  to  read  and  write  in  English.     Colorado  extended 
full  suffrage  to  women  in  1893,  ^^^  Minnesota  granted 
school  suffrage  in  1898.     California  in  1894  provided 
that  voters  must  be  able  to  read  any  article  of  the  con- 
stitution and  write  their  own  names.     On  the  Atlantic 
coast   in  1897  Connecticut  and   Delaware  are   found 
passing  similar  acts.     Thus  in  every  section  of  the   / 
country  there  was  manifest  a  tendency  to  protect  the  I. 
ballot  from  illiterates;  but  sometimes  it  was  the  igno-   v 
rant,  foreign-bom  population  that  was  aimed  at  and  at  \ 
other  times  it  was  the  negro.     Curiously  enough  as  late 
as  1905  the  people  of  Maryland  were  casting  about  for 
a  satisfactory  literacy  test  that  would  exclude  negroes, 
and  there  seems  to  have  been  no  particular  desire  so  to 
frame  such  an  act  that  it  would  not  exclude  iUiterate 
whites  as  well.    Nevertheless  the  proposed  measure  was 
severely  denounced  in  many  quarters.' 

The  Federal  Naturalization  Act  of  1906  has  really 
done  away  with  any  further  need  for  literacy  tests,  and 
they  probably  will  not  be  introduced  in  any  more  states. 
'  Nation,  LXXXI,  4. 


246  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

An  alien  seeking  naturalization  must  now  be  able  to  pass 
literacy  tests  severe  enough  to  satisfy  most  states  before 
he  can  get  his  naturalization  papers.  This,  however, 
does  not  do  away  with  the  menace  of  illiterate  negro 
suffrage,  and  the  incident  in  Maryland  indicates  that 
trouble  may  be  encountered  even  farther  north.  It  is 
to  be  wondered  whether  some  northern  states  will  feel 
obliged  to  resort  to  the  same  tactics  as  the  South  in  order 
to  eliminate  the  negro.  In  southern  Illinois  and  other 
places  outside  the  solid  South  the  black  man  has  proved 
to  be  a  rather  difficult  problem. 

The  latest  step  in  suffrage  history  has  been  the  vigor- 
ous campaign  carried  on  in  Congress  looking  toward  the 
passage  of  the  proposed  Anthony  Amendment.  This 
amendment  aims  to  secure  full  woman  suffrage  every- 
where in  the  United  States  by  means  of  amending  the 
federal  Constitution,  thus  removing  the  matter  entirely 
beyond  the  competence  of  the  respective  states.  Pre- 
vious to  this  time  attention  had  been  directed  chiefly 
upon  individual  states.  Arizona  in  191 2  was  the  last 
new  state  to  come  into  the  Union  with  full  woman 
suffrage,  and  New  York  in  19 17  was  the  last  state  to 
amend  her  constitution  in  order  to  provide  full  suffrage 
for  women.  This  last  accomplishment  was  considered  a 
tremendous  victory  for  the  suffragists,  as  may  well  be 
supposed.  However,  all  gains  in  the  respective  states 
would  be  completely  overshadowed  in  a  nation-wide 
campaign  for  the  passage  of  a  federal  amendment. 

One  of  the  most  interesting  halfway  steps  which 
the  women  were  able  to  make  occurred  in  Illinois  in 
19 13.  An  act  passed  by  the  legislature  of  that  state 
on  June  26,  1913,  granted  suffrage  to  women  so  far  as 


Woman  Suffrage  Since  the  Civil  War         247 

it  lay  in  .their  power  to  do  so.^  The  federal  Constitu- 
tion permits  state  legislatures  to  fix  the  qualifications 
of  voters  for  Presidential  electors.  Thus  women  in 
Illinois  were  permitted  to  vote  for  Presidential  electors. 
On  the  other  hand,  congressmen  are  elected  by  those  who 
are  qualified  to  vote  for  members  of  the  most  numerous 
branch  of  the  state  legislature.  Of  course  the  quali- 
fications for  electors  of  state  assemblymen  are  fixed  in 
the  IlKnois  constitution  and  cannot  be  altered  by  the 
state  legislature.  Hence  the  anomalous  situation  exists 
in  Illinois  of  women  voting  for  Presidential  electors  and 
yet  not  voting  for  congressmen  and  state  assemblymen. 
The  state  legislature  went  as  far  as  it  could  and  much 
farther  than  most  legal  students  thought  it  had  a  right  to 
go.  It  undertook  to  permit  women  to  vote  for  candidates 
for  offices  created  by  the  legislature,  assuming  that  only 
the  offices  created  by  the  Constitution  itself  were  included 
in  the  constitutional  suffrage  provision.  Thus  the  offices 
of  governor  and  assemblyman  could  not  be  made  the 
object  of  woman  suffrage  because  those  offices  were 
created  by  the  Constitution,  and  suffrage  provisions  were 
fixed  in  that  instrument.  On  the  other  hand,  the  office 
of  member  of  state  board  of  equalization,  for  instance, 
was  created  by  the  legislature,  and  it  felt  competent  to 
fix  the  suffrage  provisions  with  regard  to  that  office. 
It  was  a  bold  step  for  the  legislature  to  take  and  quite 
out  of  harmony  with  the  opinion  of  learned  writers  on 
constitutional  law,^  but  the  Supreme  Court  of  Illinois 

^  Laws  of  Illinois,  1913,  p.  333. 

*  Cooley,  Constitutional  Limitations,  p.  599:  "Wherever  the  con- 
stitution has  prescribed  the  qualifications  of  electors,  they  cannot  be 
changed  or  added  to  by  the  legislature,  or  otherwise  than  by  an  amend- 
ment to  the  constitution." 


248  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

upheld  the  measure  in  spite  of  a  very  able  attack  which 
was  made  upon  it  in  1914/ 

But  even  such  an  important  halfway  step  as  this  and 
the  full  suffrage  attained  in  many  states  are  chiefly  sig- 
nificant for  the  power  they  gave  the  woman-suffrage 
advocates  in  striking  for  a  federal  amendment.  The 
women  now  exert  a  very  great  political  influence,  and 
it  is  no  longer  possible  to  tell  whether  a  public  officer 
expresses  his  real  opinion  of  woman  suffrage  when  he 
supports  it  or  whether  he  is  simply  frightened  into  it. 
The  fight  is  to  the  death,  for  the  women  will  not  tem- 
porize with  their  opponents  but  judge  the  merits  of  a 
statesman  purely  on  his  attitude  toward  their  cause. 
Rational  and  dispassionate  discussion  of  political  prob- 
lems cannot  be  looked  for  from  this  element  until  its 
cause  is  won. 

Indications  are  that  the  opposition  is  disintegrating, 
although  a  campaign  on  a  federal  amendment  might 
stimulate  an  organized  resistance  little  expected  by  the 
suffragists.  Men  who  hope  to  remain  in  political  life 
are  starting  what  might  become  a  stampede  for  cover 
and  espouse  the  woman's  cause  with  panic-stricken 
fervor.  President  Wilson  may  have  been  responsible 
in  part  when  he  broke  the  back  of  the  opposition  to  the 
Anthony  Amendment  in  the  House  on  January  9,  1918. 
The  proposed  amendment  was  to  come  up  the  following 
day;  there  was  considerable  opposition  from  Demo- 
cratic members,  and  a  committee  of  twelve  went  to  the 
President  for  advice  on  the  matter.  He  advised  them 
to  vote  for  the  amendment,  and  the  opposition  was 
broken.    When  the  vote  came,   on   January   10,   the 

*  Scown  V.  Czarnecki,  264  111.  305. 


Woman  Suffrage  Since  the  Civil  War  249 

amendment  passed  by  the  necessary  two-thirds  vote, 
274  to  136.  It  then  went  to  the  Senate,  where  it  is  now 
pending/ 

As  was  stated  above,  the  politicians  bid  fair  to  suc- 
cumb, while  the  members  of  a  much  less  active  element 
of  the  opposition  are  meeting  the  situation  with  philo- 
sophic resignation,  unconvinced.  Their  attitude  is  par- 
ticularly interesting,  being  quite  uncolored  by  political 
considerations  or  ulterior  motives.  It  is  difficult  to  get 
expressions  of  their  opinion,  for  they  are  seldom  given 
voluntarily  and  must  be  sought  out.  For  the  most  part 
they  are  to  be  found  in  the  literature  disseminated  by 
various  associations  opposed  to  woman  suffrage. 

This  group  is  more  or  less  out  of  sympathy  with  the 
whole  woman's  movement  and  the  demands  for  equality. 
It  holds  that  women  are  demanding  something  which  all 
the  power  of  man  could  not  grant.  It  maintains  that 
woman  is  dependent  whether  she  likes  it  or  not,  and  all 
the  laws  that  could  be  written  never  would  alter  the  fact. 
In  the  plant,  animal,  and  human  kingdom  alike,  in  all 
the  fundamental,  instinctive  family  relations,  the  female 
is  bound  in  the  very  nature  of  things  to  be  dependent. 
The  tyranny  of  man,  the  old  common  law  of  England, 
and  acts  of  parliament  are  not  responsible  for  the  fact 
that  the  male  creature  is  always  the  leader,  th^  pro- 
tector, and  the  ruler  of  his  kind.  An  act  of  Congress, 
it  maintains,  will  not  alter  the  fact  that  women  instinc- 
tively seek  and  glory  in  the  protection  of  men,  that  men 
will  lead,  will  control  and  dominate  and  rule,  and  that 
normal  women  will  be  content  in  the  masterful  domina- 
tion of  their  men;  that  all  the  laws  in  Christendom  could 

^  June,  1918. 


250  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

not  alter  these  elemental  instincts.  It  is  not  cruel 
legislation  that  has  made  the  female  of  the  species 
dependent  everywhere,  among  the  flowers  of  the  earth, 
the  beasts  of  the  field,  the  birds,  the  savages,  and  at  the 
family  hearth,  and  no  amount  of  legislation  can  undo  it. 
All  the  king's  horses  and  all  the  king's  men  are  helpless 
in  the  face  of  elemental  instincts. 

One  is  likely  to  get  the  impression  that  this  group 
holds  the  opinion  that  since  this  fundamental  relation- 
ship cannot  be  altered  the  granting  of  woman  suffrage 
would  not  matter  much  in  any  case.  But  the  objectors 
go  on  to  protest  that  the  granting  of  woman  suffrage 
involves  an  attempt  to  overturn  normal  relations  that  is 
bound  to  react  disastrously  upon  society.  They  believe 
that  political  institutions  should  be  founded  on  philo- 
sophic bases  which  contemplate  these  elemental  things; 
that  suffrage  and  legislation  are  merely  the  refined 
instruments  of  civilization  with  which  men  exert  their 
control;  that  in  their  last  analysis  they  are  no  different 
from  the  cave  man's  club,  and  that  it  is  stultifying  and 
dangerous  to  let  women  play  with  the  club.  The  exer- 
cise of  suffrage  and  the  practice  of  legislation  are  so 
orderly  and  quiet  that  people  forget  the  element  of 
brute  strength  lying  in  the  background.  Only  when  the 
time  of  stress  comes,  when  lawmaking  is  useless  and 
conventions  are  ignored,  when  the  courts  retire  into  the 
background  and  society  is  plunged  into  war,  does  the 
ultimate  force  back  of  suffrage  and  legislation  come  to 
the  surface.  Now  it  is  maintained  that  political  institu- 
tions and  machinery  ought  to  be  fashioned  in  contempla- 
tion of  possible  times  of  stress  and  should  not  grant  to 
women  the  exercise  of  the  essentially  masculine  function. 


Woman  Suffrage  Since  the  Civil  War         251 

Some  go  so  far  as  to  say  that  attempts  to  do  so  will 
result  in  social  demoralization.  The  masculine  type  of 
woman  is  pictured.  An  effeminate  man  is  a  creature 
instinctively  despised,  for  he  threatens  race  degenera- 
tion. The  masculine  type  of  woman  may  threaten  the 
same;  and  the  exercise  of  the  aggressive  function  of 
leadership,  control,  and  domination,  even  through  the 
orderly  machinery  of  modern  government,  tends  to 
produce  the  masculine  type  of  woman.  That  is  the 
contention  of  this  particular  group  of  objectors.  They 
do  not  prophesy  immediate  disaster;  they  do  not  even 
deny  that  temporary  good  may  come  of  the  experiment; 
they  merely  indulge  in  philosophic  speculation.  Rome 
was  not  built  in  a  day,  nor  did  it  fall  in  a  day.  The 
effeminate,  sensuous,  dissipated  men  who  let  the  empire 
decay  were  the  product  of  generations.  There  are 
enough  unfeminine  women  identified  with  the  suffrage 
movement  today'  to  suggest  the  possibility  of  race 
degeneration  if  the  type  multiplies. 

But  such  speculations  have  as  yet  played  a  very 
small  part  in  the  controversy.  They  are  presented 
here  chiefly  because  they  seem  to  be  the  stronghold  of 
the  irreconcilables.  The  business  man,  the  politician, 
the  active  man  generally,  is  more  than  likely  to  ac- 
cept woman  suffrage,  if  it  comes,  with  a  good  grace, 
whether  he  Hkes  it  or  not.  Opposition,  if  there  should 
be  any  at  all  in  the  event  of  a  federal  amendment 
being  passed,  would  chiefly  be  found  among  certain 
sociologists  and  political  philosophers.  Their  theories 
would  no  doubt  be  the  basis  of  a  reaction,  should  it 
ever  come. 

*  Unfeminine  according  to  present  standards. 


A 


252  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

Agitation  for  a  federal  amendment,  alien  suffrage  in 
certain  states,  ununiform  literacy  tests,  strange  laws  in 
the  South,  and  semisuffrage  for  women  in  the  various 
!  states  lend  weight  to  arguments  in  favor  of  making 
\  suffrage  a  matter  for  federal  regulation  exclusively.     If 
-LTthe   federal    Constitution   would   confer   suffrage   and 
,   I  guarantee  it,  then  the  matter  would  be  entirely  beyond 
^     the  competence  of  the  states,  and  there  would  be  uniform 
suffrage  throughout  the  United  States.     Of  course  such 
an  amendment  to  the  Constitution  would  compromise 
states'  rights,  but  states'  rights  are  rapidly  coming  to  be 
nothing  but  a  memory  anyway.     It  would  be  a  very 
long  and  difficult  process  to  get  an  amendment  through, 
and  its  opponents  would  no  doubt  be  very  much  more 
aggressive  than  those  in  favor  of  it,  that  is,  because  no 
particular  group  of  people  would  feel  that  they  would 
be  directly  benefited  by  the  change.     It  would  be  justi- 
fied merely  as  a  step  in  perfecting  our  governmental 
machinery.     Woman  suffragists  are  not  willing  to  take 
it  up  because  it  might  jeopardize  the  success  of  their 
own  cause. 

A  flurry  of  indignation  arose  when  the  Great  War 
came  to  the  United  States  and  the  newspapers  hysteri- 
cally announced  that  alien  enemies  could  vote  for  con- 
gressmen in  several  states.^  A  proposed  amendment  to 
the  federal  Constitution  was  promptly  introduced  in  the 
Senate,  aiming  to  prevent  any  but  citizens  from  vot- 
ing for  congressmen  and  Presidential  electors.  Nothing 
came  of  it,  however,  and  public  interest  very  quickly 
subsided. 

^  Alabama,  Arkansas,  Indiana,  Kansas,  Missouri,  Nebraska,  Ore- 
gon, South  Dakota,  and  Texas. 


Woman  Suffrage  Since  the  Civil  War         253 

In  all  probability  an  intensely  interesting  chapter  in 
suffrage  history  is  about  to  be  enacted.  Great  pressure 
can  be  brought  to  bear  upon  the  Senate  to  pass  the 
Anthony  Amendment,  for  the  function  of  Congress  is 
merely  to  submit  the  question  to  the  states  for  final 
approval.  Then  every  effort  will  be  put  forth  on  both 
sides.  The  opposition  will  be  defending  its  last  ditch, 
and  heroic  efforts  can  be  expected.  A  defeat  for  the 
opposition  would  mean  complete  and  lasting  victory  for 
the  women,  while  victory  for  the  opposition  could  only 
mean  present-day  success  in  an  endless  struggle.  The 
Anthony  Amendment  contains  no  time  limit.'  It  is 
quite  possible  that  bitter  controversy  may  arise  out  of 
the  situation,  and  it  may  be  difficult  to  get  the  questions 
involved  fairly  before  the  courts.  If  thirty-five  states 
ratified  the  amendment  in  a  comparatively  short  time, 
and  it  seemed  impossible  to  get  another,  how  long  should 
the  measure  He  before  the  country  in  that  status? 
Suppose  that  all  forty-eight  states  cast  decisive  votes  and 
thirteen  were  negative?  Would  that  dispose  of  this 
particular  amendment  ?  Suppose  that  during  a  period 
of  many  years,  in  which  the  suffragists  were  striving  to 
convert  a  last  remaining  necessary  state,  some  state 
which  had  already  cast  a  favorable  vote  should  become 
overwhelmingly  opposed.     Could  that  state  change  its 

*  Congress  attempted  to  put  a  seven-year  time  limit  in  the  so-called 
Dry  Amendment.  That  is,  if  three-fourths  of  the  states  (36)  have  not 
ratified  the  proposed  amendment  at  the  end  of  seven  years,  it  is  intended 
that  the  measure  shall  be  considered  lost,  and  any  new  efforts  must  start 
at  the  beginning  as  if  nothing  had  been  done  at  all.  Whether  Congress 
had  the  constitutional  right  to  fix  a  time  limit  or  not  is  an  open  question 
which  may  yet  trouble  the  Supreme  Court  not  a  little.  The  Anthony 
Amendment  contains  no  time  limit,  and  the  presumption  is  that,  once 
passed  by  Congress,  it  may  lie  before  the  states  indefinitely. 


254  Suffrage  in  the  United  States 

vote  ?  The  presumption  is  that  it  could  not,  but  a  state 
finding  itself  in  that  predicament  is  not  likely  to  let  the 
matter  pass  without  precipitating  a  legal  struggle. 
These  are  all  very  practical  problems,  and  unless  the 
suffragists  should  win  over  three-fourths  of  the  states 
in  a  comparatively  short  time  constitutional  lawyers 
might  be  able  to  tie  up  the  measure  for  years. 

Those  states  which  already  have  full  woman  suffrage,' 
and  a  few  others  in  the  halfway  stage,  can  no  doubt  be 
relied  upon  to  pass  an  amendment  in  a  short  time. 
Other  things  in  favor  of  the  suffragists  are:  natural 
enthusiasm  for  a  change  hailed  as  democratic;  a  large, 
well-organized,  and  tireless  body  of  workers;  a  consider- 
able number  of  political  leaders;  and  a  large  portion  of 
the  public  press.  To  the  advantage  of  the  opposition 
are  to  be  found  inertia  and  conservatism,  clumsy  and 
awkward  political  machinery  involved  in  a  constitutional 
change,  legitimate  constitutional  issues,  legal  red  tape, 
time,  a  possible  reaction  from  reform  propaganda,  and 
finally  a  more  or  less  quiet  but  substantial  opposition  to 
be  found  in  nearly  every  section  of  the  country.  The 
struggle  will  certainly  be  interesting,  and  it  may  be 
exceedingly  long. 

^Arizona,  California,  Colorado,  Idaho,  Kansas,  Montana,  New 
York,  Nevada,  Oregon,  Utah*,  Washington,  and  Wyoming. 


INDEX 


INDEX 


Abolition,  and  woman  suffrage,  138. 

Adams,  John,  70. 

Age,  voting,  21. 

Alabama:  convention  in,  in  1867,  184; 
in  igoi,  213;  suffrage  in,  in  1819,  50; 
in  1865,  160;  in  1875,  204. 

Aliens,  admitted  to  suffrage,  119.  See 
Foreigners,  Compromises. 

Amendment.  See  Anthony  Amendment; 
War  Amendments;  Thirteenth,  Four- 
teenth, and  Fifteenth  Amendments. 

Amnesty,  Proclamation  of,  in  1865,  155. 

Anthony  Amendment,  232;  constitutional 
problems  connected  with,  253,  254;  in 
Congress,  246,  248,  253. 

Anthony  v.  Halderman,  200. 

Anti-Catholic  party,  127,  129. 

Anti-Slavery,  World's  Convention,  139. 

Arizona,  suffrage  in,  in  191 2,  246. 

Arkansas,  suffrage  in,  in  1836,  79;  in 
1864, 157;  in  1868, 187;  in  1874,  204. 

Blaine,  James  G.,  172,  i79- 

California,  convention  in,  in  1850,  126; 

suffrage  in,  in  1894,  245. 
Cases  cited:   Anthony  v.  Halderman,  200; 

Giles  V.  Harris,  223;    Guinn  v.  United 

States,   224;    James  v.   Bowman,   202; 

Lackey  v.  United  States,  202;   Minor  v. 

Happersett,  194;   Sproule  v.  Fredericks, 

222;     United   States   v.   Amsden,    202; 

United  States  v.  Anthony,  194;    United 

States  V.  Crosby,  200;    United  States  v. 

Reese,   201;    Williams  v.  Mississippi, 

223. 
Catholics,  excluded  from  suffrage,  7,  8,  10. 

See  Anti-Catholic  party. 
Chase,  S.  P.,  156,  165. 
Church,  attitude  of,  on  woman  suffrage, 

141,  237. 
Citizenship:    and  the  common  law,  183; 

and  the  federal  Constitution,  40;    and 

the   Fourteenth   Amendment,  40,  183; 

basis  of,  41;  does  not  involve  suffrage, 

,194,  195- 
Civil  Rights  Act  of  1866,  40,  182. 
Civil  War,  effect  of,  on  suffrage,  150. 
Clergy,  attitude  of,  on  woman  suffrage, 

141,  237. 
Colonial  period,  already  covered,  i ;  chief 

significance  of,  11;  suffrage  at  the  close 

of,  12;  suffrage  theory  of,  4. 


Colorado,  suffrage  in,  in  1876,  243;    in 

1893,  245. 
Common    law:     and    citizenship,     183; 

and  women,  138. 
Compromises:  on  alien  suffrage,  116,  118, 

121;    nj)  TjPp-Tngiiffrj^p^P    (^fi,  «j,  S^j^Tj^ 

on  pf^effV -mJiTs,  57,  60,  jT^rtPTT'tsit- 
taxpaying  tests,  60,  72,  104;  on  woman 
suffrage,  137,  243. 

Congress:  attitude  of,  on  negro  suffrage, 
126;  on  reconstruction,  161,  166;  hy- 
pocrisy of,  134,  169,  174;  inconsistency 
of,  167,  176;  power  of,  over  suffrage, 
164,  171,  175- 

Connecticut:  convention  in,  in  1818,  53; 
suffrage  in,  in  1845,  108;  in  1855,  118; 
in  1897,  245. 

Consent  of  governed,  theory  of,  30,  71, 
140. 

Constitution  (federal):  and  citizenship, 
40;    and  suffrage,  120,  175. 

Constitution  (state),  as  basis  of  suffrage, 
IS,  16. 

Constitutional  conventions.  See  Con- 
vention;   respective  states. 

Convention:  at  Seneca  Falls,  139;  state 
constitutional,  importance  of,  18; 
World's  Anti-Slavery,  139.  See  respec- 
tive states. 

Corruption:  in  the  South,  under  negro 
rule,  191,  192;  in  Washington,  D.C., 
192. 

Courts  (federal):  attitude  of,  on  southern 
constitutions,  222,  223;  on  war  amend- 
ments, 194.     See  Cases. 

Coverture,  and  the  common  law,  138. 

Criminals,  and  suffrage,  147. 

Declaration  of  Independence,  as  a  source 
of  suffrage  theory,  28,  234. 

Declaration  of  intention:  much  misunder- 
stood, 120;    significance  of,  119. 

Delaware:  suffrage  in,  in  1792,  25;  in 
1831,  79;   in  1897,  245. 

Democracy,  not  measurable  in  terms  of 
suffrage,  234,  235. 

District  of  Columbia:  corruption  in,  192; 

suffrage  in,  133,  181. 
Doctrine  of  expediency,  65,  66,  67,  81,  82, 

88,  140,  231.    See  Expediency. 
Dorr  Rebellion,  94;   significance  of,  100. 
Dueling,  and  suffrage,  149. 


257 


258 


Suffrage  in  the  United  States 


Educational  tests.    See  Literacy  tests. 

Emancipation  Proclamation,  much  mis- 
understood, 151,  170. 

Essential  qualifications,  for  suffrage,  in 
i860,  148. 

Exclusion  from  suffrage.  See  Catholics, 
Idiots,  Insane,  Jews,  Marines,  Minors, 
Sailors,  Soldiers,  Students,  Criminals, 
Paupers. 

Expediency:  always  underlying  motive, 
65-67;  and  literacy  tests,  231;  and 
negro  suffrage,  81,  82,  88;  and  woman 
suffrage,  140. 

Federal  amendment,  proposed  to  make 
suffrage  uniform,  252     . 

Federal  courts.     See  Courts. 

Federal  government:  control  over  citi- 
zenship, 40;  naturalization,  44,  245; 
suffrage,  164,  171,  175. 

Federalists,  33. 

Fifteenth  Amendment,  190;  does  not 
confer  suffrage,  201. 

Florida:  convention  in,  in  1865,  160; 
suffrage  in,  in  1868,  188;  in  1885,  205. 

Foreigners:  admitted  to  suffrage,  119; 
during  Colonial  period,  5;  first  a 
problem,  41;  in  New  England,  103, 
114,  119;   in  the  West,  113,  119. 

Fourteenth  Amendment:  and  citizen- 
ship, 40;  and  representation,  225; 
and  suffrage,  194;  purpose  of,  168,  182; 
thrust  upon  the  South,  167. 

Franklin,  Benjamin,  $3. 

Free  negroes:  as  a  problem,  62;  in  the 
border  states,  80.    See  Negro. 

Garrison,  William  Lloyd,  143. 

Georgia:   convention  in,  in  1865,  160;   in 

1868,  189;    in  1877,  205;    in  1789,  22; 
suffrage  in,  in  i777,  10;  in  1798,  25. 

Giles  V.  Harris,  223. 

Good  of  state.     See  Theory  of. 

Grandfather  clause,   211,   215;    declared 

unconstitutional,  224;  overemphasized, 

220. 

Great  Lakes  region,  and  aliens,  113,  119. 
Guinn  v.  United  States,  224. 

Idaho,  suffrage  in,  in  1890,  243. 

Idiots,  and  suffrage,  146. 

Illinois:    convention  in,  in  1848,  124;    in 

1869,  241;    suffrage  in,  in   1818,   48; 
in  1913,  246. 

Independence.     See  Declaration  of. 
Indiana:     convention   in,   in    1850,    121; 

suffrage  in,  in  181 6,  48. 
Iowa,  convention  in,  in  1857,  131. 
Insane,  the,  and  suffrage,  146. 


Interpretation  clauses,  in  southern  consti- 
tutions, 209,  211.    See  Literacy  tests. 

Jacksonian     democracy,     influence     on 

suffrage,  77. 
James  v.  Bowman,  202. 
Jefferson,  Thomas,  33,  35,  37,  48. 
Jews,  and  suffrage,  4,  8. 
Johnson,    Andrew:     and   negro   suffrage, 

156,    162;     reconstruction    theory    of, 

155- 


Kansas,  suffrage  in,  in  1861,  128.  • 

Kent,  Chancellor,  60. 

Kentucky:    convention  in,  in  1850,  127; 

suffrage  in,  in  1792,  23;   in  1799,  26. 
Know-Nothing  party,  115,  128.  I 

Ku-Klux  Klan,  197. 

Lackey  v.  United  States,  202. 
Landholders'  Constitution,  98. 
Legislatures     (state),    control    of,    over 

suffrage,  15,  16. 
Lincoln,  Abraham,  153. 
Literacy  tests:    and  negro  suffrage,  185, 

187,  189,  209,  211,  217;   in  the  North, 

229;    theory  of,  230. 
Louisiana:    convention  in,  in  1844,  105; 

in  1864,  158;    in  1867,  186;    in  1898, 

212;   suffrage  in,  in  1812,  38;   in  1879, 

205. 

Madison,  James,  73,  177. 

Maine:     convention    in,    in    1819,    50; 

suffrage  in,  in  1893,  245. 
Marines,  and  suffrage,  146. 
Marshall,  John,  73. 
Maryland:    convention  in,  in  1850,  118; 

suffrage  in,  in  1809,  40;   in  1905,  245. 
Massachusetts:  convention  in,  in  1820,69; 

in  1853,  140;    suffrage  in,  in  1621,  3; 

in  1857,  118;    in  1859,  131, 
Michigan:    convention  in,  in  1850,   124; 

suffrage  in,  in  1835,  79. 
Militiamen,  and  suffrage,  60. 
Mill,  J.  S.,  33. 
Minnesota:    convention  in,  in  1857,  130; 

suffrage  in,  in  1898,  245. 
Minor  v.  Happersett,  194. 
Minors,  and  suffrage,  21. 
Mississippi:    convention  in,  in  1868,  160; 

in  1890,  208;    suffrage  in,  in  181 7,  49; 

in  1870,  190. 
Missouri,  convention  in,  in  1820,  48. 
Monroe,  James,  73. 

Montana,  convention  in,  in  1890,  243. 
Moral  qualifications,  5. 


Index 


259 


Native  Americanism,  115,  127. 
Natural  right.    5ee  Theory  of. 
Naturalization,  a  federal  function,  44. 
Naturalization  Act:  of  1798,  44;  of  igo6, 

44,  245- 
Negro:    during  Colonial  period,  s;    fails 

to  assert  himself  in  the  South,  207,  221. 
Negro  suffrage:   deadlock  on,  87,  8q;  lost 

cause,   207,  221;    summary  of,  before 

Civil  War,  go.     See  Compromises. 
New  England,  and  the  foreigners,   103, 

114,  119. 
New  Hampshire:   convention  in,  in  1784, 

22;  suffrage  in,  in  1727,  7;  in  1792,  25. 
New  Jersey,  convention  in,  in  1844,  102. 
New  York:    convention  in,  in  1821,  55; 

in  1867,  232;   suffrage  in,  in  191 7,  246. 
Non-residents,  6. 
Non-taxpayers,  and  suffrage,  29,  30,  57, 

91. 
North  Carolina:    convention  in,  in  1865, 

159;  in  1868,  188;  in  1855,  82;  in  1902, 

215;  suffrage  in,  in  1856,  106. 
North  Dakota,  suffrage  in,  in  1890,  243. 

Ohio:    suffrage  in,  in  1803,  36;    in  1851, 

108. 
Opposition,  to  woman  suffrage,  141,  238, 

241,  242,  249, 250. 
Oregon,  suffrage  in,  in  1859,  131, 

Parties,  political,  attitude  of,  toward 
suffrage,  221,  222,  240. 

Paupers,  and  suffrage,  147. 

Pennsylvania:  convention  in,  in  1789, 
28;  in  1837,  85;  suffrage  in,  in  1790,  25. 

People's  Constitution,  98. 

Personalty,  as  substitute  for  realty,  29. 

Political  parties,  theory  of,  236.  See 
Parties. 

Property  qualifications:  after  the  Revo- 
lution, 13;  before  the  Revolution,  12; 
duration  of,  in  the  United  States,  no; 
eliminate  others,  20;  in  the  Colonial 
period,  3,  7;  in  the  United  States  in 
i860,  no;  in  the  West,  48,  49.  See 
Compromises. 

Protestants,  9. 

Puritans,  4,  6. 

Qualifications:  for  suffrage,  in  the  United 
States  in  i860, 148.  See  under  Suffrage, 
Property,  Taxpaying,  Literacy  tests. 

Randolph,  John,  73,  177. 

Rebellion,  Dorr,  94. 

Reconstruction:  congressional  plan  of, 
161,  i66;  Johnson's  plan  of,  155;  Lin- 
coln's plan  of,  153. 

Reconstruction  Act,  173. 


Redemption  of  the  South,  196. 

Representation:  and  taxation,  29,  64,  69, 
84,  140;  and  the  Fourteenth  Amend- 
ment, 22s;   theory  of,  58,  88,  235. 

Republican  party,  152;  actuated  by 
ulterior  motives,  179;  attitude  on 
negro  suffrage,  163, 172,  222. 

Residence,  and  suffrage,  14,  146. 

^.evolution:  effect  of,  on  suffrage,  i,  11; 
suffrage  after,  13,  20;  suffrage  before, 
12. 

Rhode  Island:  suffrage  in,  in  1767,  7; 
in  1843,  loi. 

Right  (natural).    See  Theory  of. 

Sailors,  and  suffrage,  146. 

School  elections,  and  woman  suffrage,  244. 

Seneca  Falls,  convention  at,  139. 

Slavery,  exploited  by  women,  138. 

Soldiers,  and  suffrage,  146. 

South  Carolina:  convention  in,  in  1868, 
186;  in  1895,  210;  suffrage  in,  in  1716, 
4;  in  1790,  24;  in  1810,  40;  in  1865, 
160. 

South  Dakota,  suffrage  in,  in  1890,  243. 

Sproule  V.  Fredericks,  222. 

States,  control  of,  over  suffrage,  164.  See 
respective  states. 

Statutes,  importance  of,  15. 

Storey,  Joseph,  70. 

Students,  and  suffrage,  146. 

Suffrage:  after  the  Revolution,  13;  and 
aliens,  119;  and  Catholics,  7,  8,  10; 
and  citizenship,  194,  195;  and  the 
Civil  War,  150;  and  Congress,  164,  171, 
17s;  and  consent  of  governed,  30,  71, 
140;  and  criminals,  147;  and  democracy, 
234,  23s;  and  dueling,  149;  and  expe- 
diency, 6s,  66,  67,  81,  82,,  88,  140,  231; 
and  federal  Constitution,  120,  175; 
and  Fourteenth  Amendment,  194;  and 
Fifteenth  Amendment,  201 ;  and  good  of 
the  state,  5,  14,  27,  35;  and  idiots,  146; 
and  the  insane,  146;  and  Jacksonian 
democracy,  77;  and  Jews,  4,  8;  and 
marines,  146;  and  militiamen,  60;  and 
minors,  21;  and  natural  rights,  6,  19, 
27,  64,  6s,  71,  140,  231;  and  negroes, 
207,  221;  and  non-taxpayers,  29,  30, 
57,  91;  and  paupers,  147;  and  political 
parties,  221,  222,  240;  and  representa- 
tion, 58,  88,  23s;  and  residence,  146; 
and  the  Revolution,  i,  11;  and  rights, 
S,  14,  27,  70,  139;  and  sailors,  146; 
and  soldiers,  146;  and  state  legislatures, 
15,  16;  and  statutory  law,  is;  and 
students,  146;  and  taxation,  29,  64, 
69,  84,  140;  and  a  uniform  federal  law, 
252;  and  war  veterans,  61;  before  the 
Revolution,  12;  in  District  of  Colum- 
bia, 133,  181;  in  the  West,  78,  80; 
qualifications  in  i860,  148. 


26o 


Suffrage  in  the  United  States 


Sumner,  Charles,  156,  168,  170,  180. 
Supreme  Court.    See  Courts,  Cases. 

Taxation,  and  representation,  29,  64,  69, 

84,  140. 
Taxpaying  qualifications,  20;  duration  of, 

in  the  United  States,  no;  in  the  United 

States  in  i860,  no;    in  the  West,  48, 

49.     See  Compromises. 
Tennessee:    convention  in,  in  1834,  80; 

suffrage  in,  in  1796,  24;    in  1865,  158; 

in  1866,  168;  in  1870,  203. 
Territories,  and  suffrage,  132,  181. 
Texas:  suffrage  in,  in  1866,  160;  in  1870, 

190;  in  1876,  204. 
Theory  of  consent  of  governed,  30,  7i» 

140. 
Theory  of  good  of  state,  S,  i4,  27,  35- 
Theory  of  natural  right,  6,   19,   27,  64; 

utterly  baseless,  64,  65,  71,  231;    and 

woman  suffrage,  140. 
Theory  of  right,  s,  14,  27,  70;  and  women, 

139- 
Thirteenth  Amendment,  157,  170. 

Understanding      clauses.    See     Literacy 

tests.  Interpretation  clauses. 
Uniform  suffrage,  throughout  the  United 

States,  25  2. 
Union  restored,  190. 
United  States  v.  Amsden,  202. 
United  States  v.  Anthony,  194. 
United  States  v.  Crosby,  200. 


United  States  v.  Reese,  201. 
Utah,  suffrage  in,  in  1890,  243. 

Vermont:  suffrage  in,  in  1791,  22;  in 
1777,  22. 

Veterans,  and  suffrage,  61. 

Virginia:  convention  in,  in  1829,  72;  in 
1850,  los;  in  1901,  215;  suffrage  in, in 
1762,8;  in  1864, 157;  in  1870, 190,  202. 

War  of  181 2,  influence  of,  on  suffrage,  46. 

War  veterans,  and  suffrage,  61. 

Washington,  D.C.  See  District  of  Colum- 
bia. 

Washington,  suffrage  in,  in  1890,  243. 

Webster,  Daniel,  70. 

West,  the,  attitude  toward  foreigners, 
113,  119- 

Williams  v.  Mississippi,  223. 

Wilson,  Woodrow,  and  the  Anthony 
Amendment,  248. 

Wisconsin,  suffrage  in,  in  1848,  119. 

Woman  suffrage:  and  abolition,  138; 
and  the  church,  141,  237;  and  the 
clergy,  141,  237;  and  school  elections, 
244;  and  slavery,  138;  and  natural 
rights,  140;  and  theory  of  right,  139; 
in  Illinois,  246;  in  New  Jersey,  136; 
opposition  to,  141,  238,  241,  242,  249, 
250;  today,  254.     See  Compromises. 

Woman's  rights,  beginning  of  move  for, 
135- 

Women,  and  the  common  law,  138. 

Wyoming,  suffrage  in,  in  1890,  243. 


RETURN     CIRCULATION  DEPARTMENT 
TO^^-     202  Main  Library 


LOAN  PERIOD  1 
HOME  USE 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 

Renewals  and  Recharges  may  be  made  4  days  prior  to  the  due  date. 

Books  may  be  Renewed  by  calling     642-3405. 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 


'^^  Od  ]9S9 


HOV  2  0  t99! 


UlHoul-ATlON 


DEPT. 


W)V171»9 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  BERKELEY 
FORM  NO.  DD6  BERKELEY,  CA  94720 


YB  50447 


GENERAL  LlBRftBY-U.C.  BERKELEY 

111 


^o'sy^- 


.  '■•*  * 


^L'-  i^\l 


\  rffn^c-'-'' 


rr/ 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  UBRARY 


